BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 12 February (Standing Order No. 20).

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred untilTuesday 12 February (Standing Order No. 20).

Humber Bridge Bill (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred untilTuesday 12 February.(Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prison Review

Mel Stride: What progress he has made on his review of the prison regime.

Jeremy Wright: We are reviewing what is called the incentives and earned privileges scheme to ensure the public can be confident that any privileges earned in prison are gained through hard work and good behaviour. We want this to be a comprehensive review and its findings will be available in due course. I can tell my hon. Friend that, for example, the situation whereby some prisoners have access to Sky subscription TV channels, which many of our constituents cannot afford, will not be allowed to continue.

Mel Stride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on placing mentoring at the centre of prisoner rehabilitation. My constituent Mary Stephenson is running a scheme called “belief in change”, which is currently under threat from the withdrawal of EU funding. Would my hon. Friend meet me and Mary Stephenson to see whether there is anything we can do to help assist that project?

Jeremy Wright: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent. He will be pleased to learn that the system we have in mind for dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders will reward those who have good ideas—ideas that work—in driving down the reoffending rate. He is
	right that we want to see more mentoring, as we believe it is very effective. Many other things will be affected, too, and we look forward to hearing about them.

Ian Lucas: Last month, the Secretary of State announced the immediate closure of seven prisons. When will the replacement prison, referred to in the same statement, be constructed?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman knows that what we announced was to investigate the feasibility of a large prison. We also announced that we will build 1,200 places or thereabouts at prisons that already exist. We will look carefully at all proposals made to us for suitable sites for a large new prison. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one possibility is a site in north Wales, which councillors in his area are extremely keen that we consider carefully.

Crispin Blunt: In widening the system’s capacity for delivering work, what progress has the Minister made with getting ONE3ONE Solutions on to the Government’s preferred supplier list?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend will know that we are very keen to look not just at direct contracts from Government work but at other work for ONE3ONE Solutions to pursue. We want to make sure, of course, that there is a balance to ensure that ONE3ONE Solutions is not closing out jobs that could be provided to British firms elsewhere. We will want to make sure that it has the maximum opportunities to pursue those jobs within prison that will help prisoners learn skills—both hard skills and soft skills—as this was an agenda that my hon. Friend was successful in pursuing as my predecessor.

Jenny Chapman: Much was made in the Government’s announcement on the prison regime at the weekend of the ability of gay inmates to share cells. As far as I am aware, that is already not permitted, so will the Minister inform us how many gay inmates have been sharing cells with their partners, or is this further evidence of the announcement being designed to chase the headlines?

Jeremy Wright: The point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was making—frankly, I would be surprised if the hon. Lady disagreed with it—was that it is clearly not appropriate for someone to live in that form of domestic arrangement while in custody. It is important that prisons are safe, secure and decent, but it is equally important that their regimes are properly austere and that the public have confidence in the way in which people act while they are in prison.

Jenny Chapman: I think the Minister makes my point for me: the Government do not know the figure, and this was clearly about the headlines. However, while the Secretary of State has been fretting over the weekend about the pocket money, the trainers and the overalls of inmates, he has failed to keep the most dangerous prisoners locked up. Indeterminate sentences help keep offenders inside until they are safe to release. The governor of Whatton prison, Lynn Saunders, told The Guardian:
	“I think I am fairly liberal in my attitude—I haven’t come across anyone”
	serving indeterminate sentences for public protection—
	“in this prison who I didn’t think should have an IPP. Not one.”
	Why did this Government abolish indeterminate sentences, putting the public’s safety at risk?

Jeremy Wright: I think the hon. Lady knows very well that we have replaced IPP sentences with extended determinate sentences. We have also introduced a mandatory life sentence for a second very serious violent or sexual offence. Those are entirely sensible sentencing approaches. The position with IPPs had become a disorganised and chaotic one, which we could not allow to stand. I am afraid that that is another classic example of the last Government’s introducing a measures that they had not thought through properly.
	I also think that the hon. Lady is entirely wrong to minimise the seriousness of the need to ensure that the regime in prison commands public confidence. If she believes that the public take no interest in what happens to prisoners while they are there and in the privileges to which they have access, I think she is wrong, and if she believes we should leave the position as it is, she should say so.

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Minister wants an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I am sorry to tell him that that answer was far too long. We need to speed up.

Probation Service (Low and Medium-risk Offenders)

Kelvin Hopkins: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of his proposals for the probation service on low and medium-risk offenders.

Jeremy Wright: The proposals in our “Transforming justice” consultation paper are designed to deliver a criminal justice system that punishes offenders properly and helps them to get their lives back on track. We want providers of rehabilitation services to tackle the root causes of offending, and to ensure that they have the right package of support to help offenders to turn their lives around. We will announce further details of our proposals once we have considered the responses to the consultation.

Kelvin Hopkins: Lower-risk, profitable components of the probation service are to be handed to the private sector. Yet again, the Government are simply putting public money into deep private pockets and bringing additional costs into the system. Given the year-by-year decline in reoffending, why are they intent on unleashing a potentially risky and certainly costly upheaval of the existing system, rather than investing to improve it?

Jeremy Wright: The first point to make is that we do not think that what we propose will be more expensive than the current arrangements. Quite the reverse: we think that it will save the taxpayer money. The second point is that we intend to bring in good ideas from not just the private sector but the voluntary sector, so that we can start to drive down those all-important reoffending rates. The argument for opening up rehabilitation to other agencies, private and voluntary, was advanced by the last Labour Government during the passage of the Offender Management Act 2007: we are simply implementing their idea. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman was not persuaded on that occasion either.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend assure us that providers will be commissioned to tackle the root causes of reoffending, and that they will help offenders to turn their lives around by, for example, providing mentors and signposts to employment training opportunities, as well as mental health and anti-addiction services?

Jeremy Wright: There are many reasons why someone might be leading a chaotic lifestyle, and if we really want to get to the bottom of reoffending and to turn lives around, we need to address them. My hon. Friend is right to focus on addiction, and he is also right to focus on employment. We know that one of the most effective ways of rehabilitating people is to get them into work, and that is certainly the sort of thing that we expect providers to do under the new system.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I ask the Minister about community sentences? If an individual has not performed as he or she should, who will assess, against the usual criteria, whether there has been an actionable breach? Will it be an inexperienced privateer, or will it be a fully qualified probation officer—who, incidentally, will have had no previous contact with the individual concerned?

Jeremy Wright: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that a public sector probation officer will make the judgment on whether a breach should be subject to action. Those providing interventions will be obliged to supply information about what has happened, but the judgment will be made by the probation officer.
	The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that, in a great many cases, a large number of the interventions provided for those who have been sentenced under community orders are made by the voluntary sector. It is not true that probation officers currently do everything themselves, and the flow of information between them and those who do is generally very good.

Probation Service

Mary Glindon: What progress he has made on his plans for the probation service; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: The Ministry of Justice recently published the consultation paper “Transforming Rehabilitation—a revolution in the way we manage offenders”, which sets out our plans for reforming the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in the community. The consultation closes on 22 February 2013, and we will announce further details of our proposals once we have considered the responses.

Mary Glindon: Under the Secretary of State’s proposals, services will be fragmented across a wide range of providers and will be rewarded through payment by results, which will prevent public sector probation trusts from competing for those services. So how will he ensure that the high levels of performance now provided by probation trusts in protecting the public and reducing reoffending will be maintained?

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear about why we are doing this: reoffending rates in this country have barely changed in 10 years, and it is not true to say that we are getting the kind of performance across the probation service that the hon. Lady suggests. There is good work being done in the probation service, in the voluntary sector and in the private sector, and my aim is to have a package of proposals that brings to bear the strengths of all three in reducing reoffending rates.

Alan Beith: Why have the Government come up with the idea that the commissioning of probation services should be done by a national body, rather than a local or regional one, given that that undermines the way in which local bodies concerned with preventing crime can work together and the ability of local and regional voluntary sector organisations to take part?

Chris Grayling: There are two reasons. First, we do not believe that the expertise exists on a localised basis to procure payment by results in an ambitious way—the kind we are proposing. Secondly, many probation trust management teams are enthusiastic about being part of the contracted-out world themselves, so I hope and expect that we will see some of them forming partnerships and creating new bodies that will take the service forward.

Joint Committee on Human Rights

Simon Hughes: When he last met the Joint Committee on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: I have not met the Joint Committee on Human Rights since I became Secretary of State for Justice. I was due to attend an evidence session before the Joint Committee on the Government’s human rights policy on 18 December 2012, but the meeting was postponed and will now take place on 12 February 2013.

Simon Hughes: I look forward to the Secretary of State’s visit. When we were debating the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, before he took over as Secretary of State, his Department gave a commitment to review legal aid, particularly in relation to immigration and asylum, a year later. The Committee is now addressing that issue in relation to unaccompanied minors. Will he look at the evidence being given, address that issue before he comes to meet the Committee and see whether we ought not to amend the legal aid arrangements so that vulnerable people with immigration or asylum issues get the proper legal support and advice they need?

Chris Grayling: I am very happy to give that commitment and to look at that issue before the evidence session, and I look forward to discussing these issues with my right hon. Friend and his colleagues.

Jonathan Djanogly: It seems that the Government’s process on reviewing human rights legislation is, to put it kindly, somewhat slow, at a time when the practical implications are more urgent
	than ever, not least in relation to gay marriage, which we will debate later. Will the Secretary of State speed up the process, as everyone wants to see that?

Chris Grayling: As my hon. Friend knows, I feel strongly that we need to make changes to the human rights framework. Unfortunately, it is my belief that there is not a majority in this House for such changes, and it will therefore fall to a future majority Conservative Government to deliver them.

Criminal Proceedings: Delays

Ann Coffey: What recent assessment he has made of the level of delay in criminal proceedings involving vulnerable witnesses.

Helen Grant: We want the criminal justice system to move faster, and deliver justice sooner for vulnerable witnesses and victims. We are looking at how to tackle delays across the criminal justice system to improve efficiency.

Ann Coffey: I thank the Minister for that reply. Victims of child sexual exploitation, already traumatised by their horrific experience, face gruelling cross-examination in court, often by multiple defence lawyers, in the process of justice. Does she agree that justice for those vulnerable witnesses is not served by lengthy adjournments—I am glad that she does—and that having specialist training in tackling child sexual exploitation would help judges better to balance the needs of victims and the accused in court proceedings?

Helen Grant: I fully understand and sympathise greatly with what the hon. Lady has said, and I agree with her that concerns can affect a witness’s willingness to participate in the criminal justice system. That is why the Ministry of Justice is embarking on a strategy to improve efficiency and the effectiveness of the system. That work will look at the entire process, from offence to completion of the case. I have recently written to her about a case in her constituency. I hope she has received that letter and I am happy to meet her to provide further reassurance.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Minister agree that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides the right special measures to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses so that they can give the best evidence possible?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would also add that the special procedure measures that are now available in the form of pre-trial familiarisation visits, support from the witness service, separate entrances, exits and waiting areas, and access to a live link can help to reduce the stress and anxiety of going to court. We are considering what more we can do to improve support, including using new technology to change how evidence is given.

Robert Flello: The Minister said in her recent interview with The Times that she believes that the new Victims Commissioner
	“feels a wonderful opportunity…to see victims put at the heart of the justice system”.
	Is that why the Victims Commissioner will do only 10 days a month and why, two months after the announcement, she still has not started? Is the Minister not guilty yet again of failing victims of crime?

Helen Grant: The Victims Commissioner is a very able woman who is able to multitask, like many of us. We have had a number of meetings with her and she, like me, wants to put victims and vulnerable witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong. We are prioritising victims of serious crimes, victims who are persistently targeted and the most vulnerable victims so that they get the support and care they need.

Work Capability Assessment

Tom Greatrex: What estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of appeals related to the work capability assessment.

Chris Grayling: Some 103,000 appeals against decisions related to the work capability assessment were disposed of between April and September 2012. The estimated total associated cost was £23.5 million. In the previous financial year, 189,000 appeals were made, at an estimated total cost of £45 million.

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As he knows from his previous responsibilities, many of those appeals were a result of incorrect initial decisions in a work capability assessment. Given that Department for Work and Pensions figures that I have obtained show that more than 35,000 people in the support group have to repeat the WCA, including people with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and other progressive conditions, does the Secretary of State not accept that there would be less cost to his Department and therefore to the public if we stopped reassessing people who are not going to get better?

Chris Grayling: Of course, that is really a matter for the DWP. It is my job to provide an appeal route for those who wish to appeal, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that before I left my previous job I asked officials to change how we reassessed people who had been through an appeal so that there was a more sensible length of time between appeal and reassessment.

Julian Huppert: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far more efficient throughout the entirety of government if the decisions that were made were right the first time? The work capability assessments have not delivered that since they were introduced by the previous Government. Will he talk to colleagues in the DWP to try to ensure that decision making is right first time in the interests of Government efficiency and of the people who undergo a lot of anxiety and worry as they go through the appeals process?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend will know that that was a matter of great concern to me in my previous job. None of us benefits from getting decisions wrong and a huge amount of effort has been put into getting them right. Of course, our Department must provide a route
	for appeals when they are necessary, but I can assure him that a huge amount of effort goes into trying to ensure that we get decisions right first time.

Magistrates’ Sentencing Powers

Philip Hollobone: If he will consider increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from a maximum of six months to a maximum of 12 months for the purpose of making greater use of magistrates’ courts.

Philip Davies: Hear, hear, hear, hear.

Damian Green: We are considering a number of ways to make the best use of magistrates’ courts, including the option of increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our priority in the short term, however, is to extend supervision to short-sentenced prisoners to ensure they receive supervision on release to help them stop offending.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has clearly been undertaking work experience on a farmyard. We are grateful for his contribution.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering is fortunate to have an excellent bench of magistrates and the whole nation should be grateful for the tremendous unpaid work carried out by 24,000 magistrates up and down the country. Is the Minister aware that £40 million could be saved in the criminal justice system were he to undertake this simple revision of magistrates’ powers? Justice would be better, cheaper, quicker and more local as a result.

Damian Green: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s high regard for magistrates both in Kettering and around the country. They are indeed volunteers who do a very good job. I am aware of the Magistrates Association’s proposals and the costings and savings that have been suggested. Those proposals bear scrutiny, because there will be second-order effects such as potentially more people in prison and more defendants electing to have a Crown court trial. As I said, the main thing to do is to ensure that people do not reoffend, which is why we have concentrated on extending supervision to short-sentence offenders.

Graham Jones: Does the Minister accept that that puts pressure on jury service? A constituent of mine—an elderly 69-year-old lady who is not ill but slightly infirm—has been asked to do her third stint of jury service, and she has to take three buses to get to court. Is there anything the Minister can do about pensioners who have been asked numerous times to do jury service, are not capable of doing it, and do not want to do it?

Damian Green: I am slightly confused about why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question in relation to magistrates courts, which do not have juries. As the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) might well have the effect of more cases being heard in Crown courts, there would be more demand for juries. Jurors such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) would be more in demand, so I am not entirely sure that his question is in accordance with the original question.

Roger Gale: I declare an interest, as my wife is a magistrate. Occasionally, she comes home in tears of frustration, because she and her colleagues have not been given the powers to enable them to do the job in the way in which they wish to do it. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider extending sentencing powers so that they can take some of the waiting and the queues out of justice in future?

Damian Green: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the queues, as he put it, in Crown courts in particular are coming down. We will consider the proposal from the Magistrates Association and others to increase the maximum sentencing length, but that has to be considered along with many other reforms that are needed to improve the process of justice throughout the criminal justice system.

Andy Slaughter: I think that that sounded like a no to extending magistrates’ powers. In addition, a third of indictable offences of violence were dealt with by issuing cautions last year, rather than their coming to court. While the cautioning of violent and dangerous criminals is being dealt with outside court, minor offences are being sent to the Crown court. Does that not look incompetent, even by this Government’s standards? What does the Minister have against magistrates, and why is he treating them with contempt?

Damian Green: That is the most absurd interpretation of what I have just said—that I was considering the proposal originally made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). May I tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), given his way with the facts, that the use of cautions has come down considerably since the Government of whom he was a supporter were in power?

Offender Rehabilitation

Peter Aldous: How he plans to ensure that the voluntary and charitable sectors play a full role in the rehabilitation of offenders.

Chris Grayling: Retaining the expertise and dynamism of the voluntary and community sector within the justice system is central to our approach. We have already announced an extra £500,000 of grant funding to support voluntary sector organisations, helping them to compete for contracts. My team and I are meeting a large number of such bodies early in this process to ensure that they are as fully on board as possible.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. His recent statement on transforming rehabilitation has the potential to be hugely positive for the voluntary sector, but it is crucial that charities can compete for contracts on a level playing field. What action have the Government taken to make sure that charities are not at a disadvantage when competing for contracts on a payment by results basis?

Chris Grayling: I would make two points to my hon. Friend. I absolutely agree with his premise but, first, the cash-flow element of the proposals that we have introduced
	will not be as tough as that for the Work programme. Part of the task is to pay for the requirements of the court, so the cash-flow situation will be rather different. Secondly, I am making sure that we really engage the social investment sector, which can play an important part in ensuring that voluntary sector organisations can compete on that level playing field and win on it.

David Lammy: The Secretary of State will know that we privatised and contracted out hospital cleaning, and that led to MRSA. We privatised and contracted out school meals, and that led to turkey twizzlers. Why does he think that in relation to the probation service—such an important service—privatising and contracting out will lead to a better end?

Chris Grayling: If I am not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government who introduced the legislation that makes these changes possible. The Opposition say one thing one day and another thing the next. The truth is that reoffending rates in this country have barely changed in a decade, despite extra money being spent, and I want to bring those rates down.

Prison Estate

Jeremy Lefroy: What plans he has for the modernisation of the prison estate.

Jeremy Wright: Our strategy for the prison estate is to replace accommodation that is old, inefficient or has limited long-term strategic value with cheaper modern capacity. We also have a rolling programme of maintenance that prioritises our investment across the prison estate.

Jeremy Lefroy: Stafford prison was built in 1794 and is one of the most cost-effective in the estate. Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I visited Stafford and heard from prisoners of the work done by Joanne Tomlinson on anxiety management and how it had transformed their lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that modernisation is more about what goes on inside prisons than about the bricks and mortar?

Jeremy Wright: I certainly agree that what people do is just as important as where they do it, and I congratulate those involved in the work that he described at Stafford prison. However, very often what people do is despite the environment in which they are working, rather than because of it, and my hon. Friend will accept readily, I am sure, that where we can provide newer accommodation, it will make it easier for people to do the good work on rehabilitation that he and I both support.

David Hanson: Does the Minister agree that with 800 or 900 prisoners a year from north Wales going outside north Wales, there is a need for prison accommodation in north Wales, but that the debate that he is having now would be better served by more discussion, more plans and a meeting with Members of Parliament to see whether we can reach some consensus?

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support for a prison in north Wales. He might want to discuss the matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who may not necessarily agree with him. It would be wise for everyone to consider very carefully the proposals that will come forward for suitable sites. We will do that. We have identified north Wales as one of the places where there is a strategic need, so we will consider carefully any proposals that are made.

Prisoners: Drug Addiction

Duncan Hames: What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of prisoners (a) entering and (b) leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug.

Helen Grant: A survey of 1,435 prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in 2005 and 2006 showed that 45% of prisoners reported having taken a class A drug in the four weeks before custody. No recent estimate has been made of the proportion of prisoners leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I gently suggest that it would be worth while to have more recent estimates and to address the situation of offenders as they leave prisons? Has she ruled out suspicions of collusion by any prison staff in explaining why access to drugs in prisons is so widespread?

Helen Grant: As I said, we do not have the figures on the number of prisoners leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug, but this Government are absolutely committed to stopping drugs entering prisons and getting prisoners off drugs for good.

Keith Vaz: We cannot break the devastating cycle of drugs unless we deal with the issue of drugs in prisons. Why does not the Government adopt the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, which are simple: mandatory testing of prisoners when they enter the prisons, and mandatory testing when they come out of prisons? That will give her all the figures she needs in order to deal with this serious problem.

Helen Grant: We feel that investing in comprehensive testing may not be the best way to tackle the problem, but the Government welcome the Home Affairs Committee report, “Drugs: Breaking the Cycle”, and we will of course give careful consideration to all the findings and recommendations.

Nick Gibb: The Minister will be aware that at Ford prison in my constituency the independent monitoring board has reported that 85% of the prison population is involved in the use of spice, a synthetic cannabinoid. I am not convinced that current orthodoxies in the Prison Service to combat drugs in our prisons are working: is she?

Helen Grant: Our plans to transform rehabilitation will radically change the way that we manage offenders, and they will also provide much more effective support for
	offenders on release. Fewer prisoners are testing positive for drugs than at any time since 1996. However, there is still much more to do, and that will involve our working very closely with the Department of Health and others to provide the best possible recovery services.

Paul Flynn: I am provoked by the very complacent answers that we have had. All the Government are offering is warm words on this. They say they have no recent evidence, but we all know from our own experience that not one single prison in the whole of Britain is free of illegal drugs. If the Government have no evidence of people going in as shoplifters and coming out as heroin addicts, the rest of society does have it. Should not the Government adopt a policy that is at least robust and realistic and look at the traffic between prison officers and prisoners on drugs?

Helen Grant: As I made clear, we are looking carefully at the excellent report by the Home Affairs Committee. However, we genuinely believe that our transforming rehabilitation plans will provide much better continuity of care and help to get prisoners off drugs in the long term.

Squatting

Mike Weatherley: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the legislation on squatting in residential premises introduced in 2012.

Damian Green: The offence only came into force on 1 September 2012, but early indications are that it is being enforced, and reports suggest that it is deterring would-be squatters from occupying other people’s homes.

Mike Weatherley: There are indications that as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 squatters are increasingly targeting commercial properties. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to evaluate the size of the problem of squatting in commercial premises nationally and to take action to amend the law if necessary?

Damian Green: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are monitoring this closely, because it is possible that displacement squatting, as it were, is happening. We are in the early stages of collecting evidence. If he has specific examples from his own constituency of squatters occupying non-residential buildings, we will look at it very carefully, because squatting is a damaging offence.

Alternative Sentences

Andrew Stunell: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternatives to short-term prison sentences.

Tim Farron: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternatives to short-term prison sentences.

Helen Grant: The Ministry of Justice has published evaluations of the effectiveness of community orders and custodial sentences in reducing reoffending. Reoffending rates are still too high, and that is why we have set out plans to transform rehabilitation.

Andrew Stunell: While there has been a very welcome fall in crime and antisocial behaviour, many victims still feel alienated by the justice system and its impenetrable sentencing guidelines. Will the Minister speed up the move to restorative justice so that victims can feel much more engaged and the community will benefit from the justice system?

Helen Grant: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. We do want to mainstream restorative justice, and we are working hard with the Restorative Justice Council to make sure that we go forward in a controlled and sensible manner.

Tim Farron: Government pilots show that restorative justice programmes have caused a 14% reduction in offending. What steps are the Government taking to roll out schemes more widely throughout the country? Will the Minister give a specific pledge to protect funding for projects like the Sycamore Tree foundation at Haverigg prison in Cumbria?

Helen Grant: There is a framework, and we are looking at capacity and quality. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with full details.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree, though, that we have far too many people in prison and that when they get to prison not enough is done to turn them into good citizens? Is there not plenty of evidence that effective treatment outside prison, in the community, works? Can we not improve those alternatives, because the probation service is crucial in helping to make them effective?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point. Obviously, who goes to prison is a matter for the independent judiciary. Prison is absolutely the right place for some offenders, but I agree that for other offenders credible punitive community sentences can be a more appropriate disposal.

Andrew McDonald: Has the Minister considered the effectiveness of short-term prison sentences for women, not only in terms of reducing reoffending but in terms of the disruption and damage caused to dependent children by custodial sentences of a few weeks in prison?

Helen Grant: Yes, I have considered that very carefully. Indeed, I have visited a number of facilities. I visited a wonderful facility in Gloucester a couple of weeks ago and will visit Alana House in Reading on Thursday to look at the exact issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Community sentences must, however, be credible as sentences and with the public. They cannot be fluffy options. They should have a punitive element and they
	should absolutely challenge the woman, or the man, to change her life. That is why the Crime and Courts Bill will require every community order to have a punitive element.

Prison Places

Gordon Henderson: What plans he has for the provision of prison places.

Jeremy Wright: We will always ensure there are sufficient prison places for offenders sentenced to custody by the courts, and we will seek to do so increasingly in cheaper, more modern accommodation. We intend there to be at least as many adult male prison places at the end of this Parliament as there were at its start.

Gordon Henderson: When considering any future extension of the prison estate, will my hon. Friend consider the Isle of Sheppey as a suitable location for that expansion?

Jeremy Wright: We will consider all reasonable bids. My hon. Friend knows that we have looked, and are looking, into the feasibility of a new large prison. We have identified three parts of the country where we think there is a particularly strong case, but we will look carefully at any reasonable bids.

Andrew Gwynne: But of the Minister’s Department’s plans to resurrect Titan prisons, an Economist headline said, “You can’t keep a bad idea down”. Why the U-turn in Tory prisons policy after four years?

Jeremy Wright: Do let us remember whose bad idea it was. We are not resurrecting it; we are talking about a prison that is economically viable and that will save the taxpayer money, but it may not and almost certainly will not be exactly what a Titan prison was. There are many ways of doing this. We could, for example, have a number of smaller institutions on one site and still achieve the same economies of scale. The hon. Gentleman should not believe that this Government will make the same mistakes as his made.

Prisoner Transfer Agreements

Edward Leigh: What progress his Department is making on the use of prisoner transfer agreements to allow the removal of foreign prisoners.

Jeremy Wright: We are working hard across Government to remove foreign national offenders from this country. Last year we removed more FNOs under prisoner transfer agreements than the year before. We recently made our first transfer under the European Union PTA and signed a compulsory PTA with Albania, which is the first time we have done so with a high-volume FNO country.

Edward Leigh: Have any agreements been reached with any countries recently?

Jeremy Wright: They have. We signed the agreement with Albania earlier in January, which is very recently indeed. We hope that we will start making returns under that agreement very shortly. As I have said before, it is important that the agreements, wherever we can negotiate them, are compulsory prisoner transfer agreements so that prisoners do not have the choice about going back.

Judicial Review

William Bain: What his Department’s policy is on reform of judicial review.

Chris Grayling: As set out in our recent engagement exercise “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”, our policy is to reduce the burden on public services of ill-founded judicial review applications, while protecting access to justice and the rule of law. We are working with the judiciary to ensure that we achieve that balance.

William Bain: Has the Secretary of State not seen Liberty’s response to his consultation on judicial review, which finds no statistical or any other evidence that it impedes growth or stifles innovation? Why does the Secretary of State believe it is right to remove rights from local communities and vulnerable people in immigration cases just to find an excuse for why this economy has not grown in five of the past nine quarters?

Chris Grayling: The problem with judicial review is that it has mushroomed beyond any expectation. It started with a few hundred cases when it was first introduced and there are now more than 10,000 a year. Often, those judicial review processes are based on a public relations exercise or an attempt to derail the reform temporarily by using a technicality. Judicial review should be a genuine process to challenge the public authorities when they get it wrong; it should not be an excuse to fly a kite.

Employment and Support Allowance

Sheila Gilmore: If he will develop a feedback process to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for the overturning of employment and support allowance decisions by tribunal judges.

Chris Grayling: The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals’ decisions is a matter for the judiciary. However, as the hon. Lady will remember, in my previous role we put in place new arrangements last year. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is now working with the DWP to evaluate the findings so that decision making can be improved wherever we can do so.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, his successor as employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), told the Work and Pensions Committee that it was important to expand the reasons given by tribunals far beyond those on the dropdown menu, so that opaque statements such
	as “cogent oral evidence” are not given as the reason for an appeal being upheld. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those reasons will be expanded greatly?

Chris Grayling: Of course, the intention of the change was to identify relevant information that would improve decision making. We have learned quite a lot from the dropdown menu. The two Departments will of course discuss any improvements that will increase the quality of decision making and reduce the number of appeals.

Topical Questions

Gordon Henderson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: Since becoming Justice Secretary, I have embarked on a programme of delivering more for less and of boosting public confidence in the justice system. We are consulting on transforming rehabilitation and will shortly be considering reforms to youth justice.
	In the past, my Department has routinely undertaken 12-week written consultations in some areas, including legal aid. I want to be clear that although the Government still want to hear the views of stakeholders and the public on many matters, they should no longer expect a 12-week consultation, even where that has been the practice in the past. Instead, in line with the new Cabinet Office principles, we will take a fresh look across all areas at whether, how and for how long we should consult, according to what is appropriate and proportionate in each case.

Gordon Henderson: I was going to use this opportunity to follow up on my previous question, but since I got a good answer, I will not bother.

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has created a precedent, but I do not know whether it will ever be followed.

Sadiq Khan: I only wish that I had received a good answer from the Justice Secretary. He has been busy in recent weeks chasing headlines with general statements on everything from Titan prisons to spartan prisons, and from gay prisoners to smacking children. May I ask him about the specifics? I note that his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), could not answer earlier, but then he did not do the media appearances. When will the first Titan prison open, where will it be and how much will it cost?

Chris Grayling: We are not planning to build a Titan prison. We have a very good model for prison development in Oakwood, which opened recently in the west midlands. That site has multiple blocks and first-class training facilities. To my mind, it is an excellent model for the future of the Prison Service. We are looking at a number of sites and hope to reach a decision in the next few months on the best option. I would like to open a new generation prison as quickly as possible, because it will save the taxpayer money and the facilities will be better.

Sadiq Khan: Four weeks ago, the Justice Secretary announced to the BBC, Sky and anyone else who would listen that he was going to open new super-mega Titan prisons in the near future and that he would undertake feasibility studies. Given his comments on Sunday, can he tell the House how many current prisoners are gay and are sharing a prison cell with another gay person?

Chris Grayling: I do not know how many people in prison are gay. I want to ensure that the regime in our prisons is appropriate, commands the confidence of the public and provides an appropriate environment for rehabilitation and training. We must have a prison system in which everyone can have confidence.

Gareth Johnson: An increasing number of international companies are looking to the UK for its legal services. That trade creates billions of pounds for our economy. Will the Minister tell the House what plans there are further to promote British legal services abroad?

Helen Grant: As my hon. Friend knows, our legal firms and educational establishments are great assets to this country. The Ministry of Justice continues to work very closely with UK Trade & Investment and the profession to promote those wonderful services overseas. I am sure that my hon. Friend would take great joy in looking at the Unlocking Disputes campaign, which is a good example of recent fruitful activity.

Iain Wright: The Teesside coroner takes almost twice as long as the national average to conclude inquests, causing further anguish to grieving families. This matter has been raised many times with the Ministry. Why on earth, given his failing and unprofessional service, is the coroner still in post? What steps will the Secretary of State take to remove him?

Chris Grayling: I will not give a detailed response in the Chamber but I am happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman. I take seriously any concern about the effectiveness of the judiciary—which is, of course, independent—and I also take seriously my responsibilities as Lord Chancellor. I will look into the issue.

Stephen Gilbert: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to improve the youth detention system, and in particular to ensure that the great work done by secure children’s homes continues?

Chris Grayling: As I indicated earlier, I intend to bring forward shortly a consultation paper on the youth estate. Our challenge at the moment is that across the youth estate we are detaining a small number of young people at a very high cost and with an unacceptably high reoffending rate—something like 70%. I want to see whether there is a better way of doing things to reduce that reoffending rate and help turn the lives of those children around.

Karl Turner: This morning I met Bill Waddington, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association. Despite what
	the Minister said in response to an earlier question, I was assured that there has been a sharp increase in cautions for serious offences, including sexual offences and violent assault. That is soft on criminals and harsh on victims. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Bill Waddington to discuss the issue?

Chris Grayling: I take seriously the issue of cautions being administered for serious offences. Indeed, one of the first things I did as Justice Secretary was commission work on the issue, and I am due to meet senior police officers to discuss it in the next few days. I do, however, caution the House to be careful. For example, we would all view a caution for rape as completely unacceptable, but in some cases where the victim is absolutely unwilling to give evidence it may be the only way to get something on the record about an offender. We must be careful about this issue and try to get it right.

Simon Wright: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential to reduce reoffending by providing treatment in prisons for gambling addiction?

Jeremy Wright: We recognise that prisoners have a variety of causes for their offending and my hon. Friend is right to highlight one of them. We want to ensure that prisoners have access to the necessary schemes and interventions—both in prison and through the gate to the outside—to deal with whatever their issues may be. I will certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend says about gambling and at whether more can be done.

Jack Dromey: Just when MPs of all parties are seeing growing demand for housing, including as a consequence of the Government’s welfare and benefit changes, eight Shelter housing advice centres are scheduled to close. Those centres are lifelines to those in housing need, often at a time of crisis in their lives. Will the Secretary of State meet me and hon. Members from all political parties who are concerned about how to support those in housing need in their constituencies?

Chris Grayling: We will always discuss concerns that Members of this House have about their constituencies, but Labour Members must understand that we are dealing with an unprecedented financial crisis. We inherited from them a situation in which this country was borrowing £1 for every £4 that it spent. That inevitably means tough decisions that they may not always like.

Robert Buckland: Magistrates courts in Swindon and Wiltshire are about to make important decisions about the allocation of crime and family work. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and those on local magistrates benches to ensure that very long journeys in order to access justice do not become the norm?

Damian Green: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. Like me, I am sure that he will welcome the work done by the Courts Service to produce alternative ways
	in which people can give evidence—video links and so on—which mean that some unnecessary journeys and waiting times in courts can be removed.

Diana Johnson: There are 500,000 victims of sexual offences but only 5,600 convictions. Why does the Secretary of State think that the number of sex offenders who are prosecuted is falling under the coalition Government?

Chris Grayling: We take the whole issue of sexual offences very seriously, which is why one of the coalition commitments is to expand the availability of rape crisis centres. I visited the team running one such centre in Devon last week, and I pay tribute to them for their work. The Government will do everything they can to ensure that offenders and people who commit serious sexual offences are brought to trial. Any ideas that come through our rape crisis network of ways we could do that will be listened to.

John Glen: I want to refer to the Justice Secretary’s proposals to reform the probation service. I have received a communication from the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire who expresses grave concern about the degree of consultation prior to that announcement, and about the level of involvement and discretion that the commissioners will have in providing those services locally.

Chris Grayling: One thing we are doing before launching our policy is consulting on the broad direction of travel. That creates an opportunity for police and crime commissioners and others with an interest to take part. We are listening.

David Crausby: Most people accept that there is a need for change in the motor accident claims sector, but is the Secretary of State satisfied that new plans to raise the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000 will ensure that accident victims continue to find adequate independent local advice and access to justice?

Chris Grayling: I think the new plans will do that. Indeed, I think there is a case for saying that the small claims court limit of £5,000 is too low. I am keen for people to have access to a proper legal process, but the benefit of the small claims court is, in part, arbitration. The plans make the process simpler and cleaner for people who have been through a difficult time.

Philip Davies: Last month in Bradford, Qamar Malik was one of the last people to be locked up on an indeterminate sentence for public protection. Malik is a dangerous, predatory paedophile who was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assaulting a six-year-old girl and of twice attempting to abduct a 12-year-old girl. Under his IPP, he will not be released until he is considered safe to be released, but under the Government’s new regime people like Malik will be released whether or not they are safe to be released. How does that make my constituents any safer?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend knows how I hate to disagree with him, but he needs to recognise that we are replacing IPP sentences with measures that are just as
	tough and a lot more effective. The truth is that if someone is convicted of offences of a very serious nature, the judge has the option of passing the ultimate indeterminate sentence—a life sentence—if that is merited. We are therefore taking measures to protect the public. We are replacing an ineffective sentencing regime with a much more effective one.

William McCrea: As the Minister progresses his plans for probation services, what consultations has he had with the devolved Administration? When did he last meet the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and were probation services on the agenda?

Chris Grayling: I last met the Northern Ireland Justice Minister about 10 days ago and am meeting him again tomorrow. No doubt probation services will be one thing we discuss.

Julian Lewis: Given the renewed threat that convicted terrorists will pose to society on release and the amount of security and intelligence resources that will have be devoted to monitoring them, will the Minister confirm that the use of automatic early release would be entirely inappropriate for them?

Jeremy Wright: Our expectation would be that people receive an extended determinate sentence for an offence of terrorism, under which release would not be automatic. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

Paul Goggins: Further to that question, the Minister recently confirmed in a written answer that 12 terrorists convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006 will be released from prison this year. How does he intend to ensure that the probation trusts responsible for their supervision have the necessary additional resources?

Jeremy Wright: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the arrangements made for offenders of that nature will be multi-agency public protection arrangements. We want to ensure that local authorities and all other agencies responsible for joining in under MAPPA have the support they need. We will look carefully at what he has said and ensure that that happens in each of those examples.

Julian Huppert: Magistrates courts play a key role in the administration of justice in the UK, but too often their operation can be deeply chaotic—it can be unclear when cases will be heard, cases start and stop, and it is hard to follow proceedings. Will the Department consider reorganising how magistrates courts work so we get efficient and clear administration of justice in them?

Damian Green: I am at one with my hon. Friend on that. I visit magistrates courts and was at Maidstone recently to see a very well run magistrates court—it is well run not least because the court officials and those feeding the court can use new technology, which, increasingly, will speed up the process.

Jonathan Ashworth: I thank the Ministry of Justice for granting the appropriate licence to the university of Leicester to exhume the remains that have turned out to be those of Richard III. Will the Minister confirm that under the terms of the licence, it is up to the university to decide what to do with the remains and that the university has handed them to Leicester cathedral and that Richard III will be buried there?

Chris Ruane: How much does he owe in parking fines?

Chris Grayling: On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate all of those who have been involved. It is an historic occasion and an extraordinary piece of history. I hope everyone will come together for a proper service to mark the occasion, and for a formal internment in the cathedral.

Mr Speaker: We are not debating the question of whether Richard III incurred parking fines.

Kerry McCarthy: I have been in touch with the Youth Justice Board about the decision to change Ashfield young offenders institution into an adult prison. I am told that young offenders from the Bristol area will now be sent as far away as Feltham. I am concerned about their contact with their families, chances of rehabilitation and so on. What reassurance can the Minister give me that those facts will be taken into account?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady puts her finger on one of the great difficulties we have with the youth justice estate. As numbers drop, it is inevitable that we will need to re-roll capacity, and that could mean young offenders and their families being further away from home. However, we will do everything we can for each reallocated young person to ensure that they are as close to home as we can make it. She will recognise that not everybody at that young offenders institution comes from the Bristol area, so it may be that some will be nearer to home.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am immensely grateful to the Minister. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but Chris Ruane will have to have the last question.

Chris Ruane: You have not disappointed me, Mr Speaker. The prisons Minister misunderstood the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on the issue of a prison for north Wales. Will he meet north Wales MPs of all parties to discuss this important issue, in the interests of clarity?

Jeremy Wright: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is interested in clarity, because Government Members have been somewhat confused about what the Labour party in north Wales wants. Perhaps it would help if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were to meet their local councillors and decide what the Labour party in north Wales wants. We will then be happy to talk to them.

Points of Order

Ian Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for a Minister to refuse to meet hon. Members to discuss important matters relating to their constituencies. It seems extraordinary that a Minister has refused three times to meet elected Members of Parliament who should be given respect.

Mr Speaker: Even if something is extraordinary, that does not necessarily render it disorderly. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter between the Minister and the Member. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If the Minister wants briefly to respond, he can.

Jeremy Wright: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, because I want to ensure, in the interests of clarity, that the hon. Gentleman understands what I have just said: once he and his colleagues have worked out what it is they want, I am very happy to meet them.

Mr Speaker: I hope there is just a possibility of an outbreak of harmony, but as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is on his feet I somewhat doubt it.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that right hon. and hon. Members have only two privileges that are not available to every citizen in this country? One is freedom of speech in this Chamber, subject to your rulings, and the other is access to Ministers.

Mr Speaker: I am reluctant to enter into a debate on this matter. The first point is unarguable; the second is something about which I have just opined. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to lure me further, because that would be unfair and the right hon. Gentleman would never knowingly be unfair.

Building Regulations (External Retaining and Load-Bearing Walls)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Stephen Mosley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Building Regulations (2010) to include regulation of external retaining and load-bearing walls; and for connected purposes.
	On 26 July 2008, the lives of my constituents, Peter and Lindsay Burgess, were changed for ever. At the time, the Burgess’s were living in Meliden, in Denbighshire, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is in his place. Mrs Burgess, accompanied by her three-year-old daughter Meg and 18-month-old son Wilson, had been for a walk to the local shop.
	On the way home, while Mrs Burgess pushed Wilson in his pram, her daughter, Meg, followed a few steps behind. With no warning, a 72-foot-long section of wall collapsed, spilling tonnes of rubble, breeze-blocks and earth over the pavement and burying Meg. Mrs Burgess screamed, pulled at the rubble with her hands and tried to pull Meg out, but unfortunately Meg was declared dead 10 minutes after arriving at Glan Clwyd hospital in nearby Bodelwyddan. Tragically, Meg was crushed to death as a 5-feet 2-inch wall fell on top of her. The 72-foot-long wall was built of 9-inch breeze-blocks right next to the pavement, and fell pretty much in one piece under the weight of 26 tonnes of rubble piled up behind it.
	This was not a typical garden wall; it was a large-scale engineering project, but the materials used to build it were not adequate for its purpose. The wall had not been properly anchored into the ground, no measures had been taken to protect pedestrians walking along the pavement, and it collapsed just moments after it had been backfilled. The builder, George Collier, was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence at Mold Crown court in October and was given a two-year jail sentence. Officially, justice has been done, but Meg should never have been killed in the first place, because the wall should have been built safely.
	The pain and anguish that Mr and Mrs Burgess have dealt with these past four years are unimaginable to everyone in the Chamber, yet they have carried themselves with incredible dignity and strength, and now that they have achieved justice for Meg, they are determined that no one else should have to go through what they have been through. That is why they have set up Meg’s campaign, which seeks to license the domestic building trade in the UK and to bring free-standing, load-bearing and retaining walls within the scope of building regulations. Today’s motion seeks to address one part of Meg’s campaign, and I hope that it finds favour on both sides of the House.
	Meg is not the only person to have been killed or injured by a collapsing wall. The exact numbers are difficult to quantify, but a written parliamentary question I asked last year revealed that, on average over 10 years, more than 1,000 injuries a year were caused by the
	collapse or partial collapse of exterior walls. Significant numbers of people are injured every year, yet changes to building regulations have not been forthcoming.
	On behalf of Mr and Mrs Burgess, I would like to express gratitude to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), for meeting us in December to discuss the intricacies of Meg’s campaign and to thank him for the promises he made and for his commitment to ensure that local authorities are fully aware of their current responsibilities in relation to dangerous structures.
	Nevertheless, more needs to be done. As things stand, retaining and load-bearing walls are not covered by building regulations. There are centrally available guidelines about how a retaining wall should be built, but sadly they are not always adhered to. A Department for Communities and Local Government consultation document published in January 2012 revealed that more than 50% of small builders surveyed did not follow any form of official guidance for building walls.
	The fact is, Mr Speaker, that you and I could go out this afternoon, watch a video on YouTube, erect a 5-foot wall and pile up tonnes of rubble behind it, and there would be no obligation on us to seek official guidance or consult experienced structural engineers and building control would not need to inspect our work. In Meg’s case, despite the builder’s 30 years of experience in the groundworking trade, he chose to cut corners and build a wall without the structural integrity required to retain the weight he planned to pile against it. Had the builder followed the guidelines, Meg would still be alive today.
	That is the crux of the issue. Although the builder clearly did not follow construction guidelines, at no point did anyone check whether he had done so. Had retaining walls been included in building regulations, the property owner would have had to submit plans for the wall to the local authority for approval and to indicate its purpose as a retaining wall, the design would have had to incorporate the additional strengthening measures required for it to carry weight and the work would have had to be inspected before any earth was piled against it. Any building inspector would have instantly seen that the proposals for the wall were not up to scratch and that it would be unlikely to support its own weight, let alone the weight of rubble and earth piled up behind it. Any building inspector would have been able to see that the wall was not strong enough. No earth would have been piled up behind the wall, and Meg would still be alive today. Instead, Mr Collier
	thought he could get away with saving a few hundred pounds on materials, and a few hours of labour. As a result, a young child is dead.
	This motion would enable a Bill to come before the House to bring retaining and load-bearing walls within building regulations. This is a simple, straightforward proposal for which other countries across the world have seen fit to legislate. In Australia, for example, any retaining wall over 1 metre in height requires development approval. They have also been legislated for in a number of US states, for instance in Colorado, where any retaining wall over 3 feet high requires a site plan to be submitted and a permit to be obtained from county planning departments. In the Republic of Ireland, planning permission is required for retaining walls over a certain height, depending on the local authority responsible.
	Regulation of retaining walls is not without precedent in the UK either. Section 5 of the Hastings Borough Council Act 1988 states that
	“no retaining wall shall be erected otherwise than in accordance with plans, sections and specifications approved by the Borough Council”.
	Therefore, in the borough of Hastings—indeed, in the borough of Hastings alone—by Act of Parliament, anyone who wishes to erect a retaining wall over 1.5 metres in height must have their plans approved by the borough council.
	Although I understand that local authorities may object on the grounds of increased work load, the Hastings Act shows how simple and straightforward it would be for them to administer such a proposal. I am totally supportive of the Government’s red tape challenge, but this is a potentially life-saving measure that could, and should, be adopted as soon as possible.
	I am delighted by the huge number of hon. and right hon. Members who have chosen to pack this Chamber for this ten-minute rule Bill motion. I hope they will all join me in supporting the motion and in urging the Minister to consider carefully the merits of bringing retaining and load-bearing walls within the scope of building regulations. I commend this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Stephen Mosley, Chris Ruane, Chi Onwurah, John Stevenson, Stephen Metcalfe, Sarah Newton, Mr Alan Reid, Pamela Nash, Graham Stringer, Andrew Miller, Jim Dowd, Mike Weatherley present the Bill.
	Stephen Mosley accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013 and to be printed (Bill 132).

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: There is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, and 71 Members want to speak. We will do our best to accommodate them all, but it will be appreciated if Members do not keep coming up to the Chair asking whether, and if so, when, they will be called. They shall just have to be patient. We look forward to the debate.

Maria Miller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Mr Speaker, you and I know that every marriage is different—indeed, any husband or wife of a Member of this House has a distinct set of challenges to face every day—but what marriage offers us all is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving stable relationship to strengthen us and mutual support throughout our lives. I believe that that should be embraced by more couples. The depth of feeling, love and commitment between same-sex couples is no different from that depth of feeling between opposite-sex couples. The Bill enables society to recognise that commitment in the same way, too, through marriage. Parliament should value people equally in the law, and enabling same-sex couples to marry removes the current differentiation and distinction.
	There is no single view on equal marriage from religious organisations. Some are deeply opposed to it; others tell us that they see this as an opportunity to take their faith to a wider community.

Gerald Kaufman: Will the right hon. Lady give the House a cast-iron guarantee that, if the Bill becomes law, no religious denomination, no place of worship and no clergyman—or equivalent in other religions—will be forced through legal action in the courts or in the European Community to carry out weddings against their wishes?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts some of the later parts of my contribution. I can tell him that we have taken seriously all the points that he has raised about the need for protection. He will see how we have put those measures in the Bill in some detail.

Stewart Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the letter that was written to hon. Members by Lord Carey of Clifton on the issue of equality between same-sex and different-sex couples? In it, he talks about
	“the failure of the Government to address the important issues of consummation and adultery. While these concepts will continue to remain important aspects of heterosexual marriage, they will not apply to homosexual marriage. On the one hand, this does nothing to promote the ideal that marriage is both equal and should be a lifelong union.”

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend will know that there is already no legal requirement for consummation. Our provisions will mean that adultery stays as it is and that couples will have the opportunity to cite unreasonable behaviour, as do many already. The issues that he raises are dealt with very well in that way.
	As I was saying, there is no single view on equal marriage from religious organisations. I also know that some colleagues in the House feel that they cannot agree with the Bill for principled religious reasons, and I entirely respect that stance. I do not think that it is the role of the Government to tell people what to believe, but I do think that Parliament and the state have a responsibility to treat people fairly.

Matthew Offord: Will the Minister take this early opportunity to confirm that the opponents of the Bill, including many hundreds of my constituents, are not homophobic, not bigots and not barking?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend makes his point very well.

Charles Walker: I very much support the Bill, but I regret that it is being programmed. Consideration should be on the Floor of the House and there should be two days for the Second Reading debate so that those on both sides of the argument can fully express their views.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend knows that I take these matters very seriously indeed. We have to ensure that there is sufficient debate, and I think that we have made sure through the usual channels that that is the case. I hope that he will be pleased with the progress that we have made on that.

David Winnick: rose—

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Stephen McCabe: rose—

Maria Miller: I should like to make a little more progress. I will take some more interventions in a moment.
	Some say that the Bill redefines marriage, but marriage is an institution with a long history of adaptation and change. In the 19th century, Catholics, Baptists, atheists and many others were allowed to marry only if they did so in an Anglican Church, and in the 20th century, changes were made to recognise married men and married women as equal before law. Suggestions that the Bill changes something that has remained unchanged for centuries simply do not recognise the road that marriage has travelled as an institution.

David Winnick: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there was a great deal of opposition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967? I voted for the Bill, but there was much opposition to it. Does she agree that today hardly a single Member would wish to return to the situation prior to the 1967 Bill and that it is possible that if this measure is passed it will be generally accepted in the same way within a few years?

Maria Miller: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. What we have to do is not just legislate for today, but for the future.

Stephen McCabe: I am going to support the Bill tonight because I think the principle is right: I am not sure why I should enjoy a right or a privilege that is denied to
	others. But why has the Minister not confined herself to civil marriage? Would that not be a much easier area for Parliament to deal with?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will know that many religious organisations have expressed an interest in being able to undertake same-sex marriages. We believe it is right for them to be able to do that. That is why the Bill contains provisions for them to do that, if they so choose.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Miller: If hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress, I shall take more interventions later.
	As we have heard, marriage should be defended and promoted in every way. To those who argue that civil partnerships exist and contain very similar rights, that marriage is “just a word” and that this Bill is unnecessary, I say that that is not right. A legal partnership is not perceived in the same way and does not have the same promises of responsibility and commitment as marriage. All couples who enter a lifelong commitment together should be able to call it marriage.

Simon Hughes: I will vote for the Bill’s Second Reading because I support the principle that the Minister has just enunciated, but the last intervention made an important point about ensuring that we legislate carefully on those things that the state can deal with, which is civil marriage, and not trespass on religious beliefs. Will she make it absolutely clear that she will be open both in Committee and on Report to amendments that might give us a much better balance and be capable of reassuring many more people?

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. What I can do is reassure him that we have been working very closely with the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and both organisations feel that there is a set of protections, which the Church of England in particular said it did not want to see changed.

Rehman Chishti: On religious organisations, the Minister will know that 5% of the UK population is Muslim. What proportion of the Muslim community responded to the consultation? How many were for it and how many were against it? My understanding is that not a single mosque responded by supporting the redefinition of marriage.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend will know that this issue is not about numbers; it is about working together and providing protections to make sure that individuals from whatever faith group can continue to be assured that they can practise according to their faith. That is the point of today’s debate.

Caroline Lucas: I very much welcome the Bill, but does the Minister understand the disappointment of those who believe that the Church of England is not being given the choice accorded to other faiths to marry same-sex couples if they so choose and that far from being forced to marry same-sex couples, the Church of England is being forced not to marry them, even if some elements would like to do so?

Maria Miller: I can give the hon. Lady complete reassurance today that this Bill is not in any way trying to treat the Church of England or indeed the Church in Wales differently. The end result for the Churches will be exactly the same as for other religious institutions. The difference, of which I am sure she will be aware, is that the Church of England and the Church in Wales have different duties under common law to marry people in their parishes. The canon law of the established Church of England is part of the law of the land, so we need different measures in place to recognise those differences. I absolutely assure her that if either of those organisations chose to opt in to same-sex marriage, the provisions of the Bill would allow them to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Miller: If hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress, we can have further interventions later.
	It is clear from the contributions we have just heard that there is no doubt about the fundamental importance of faith in this country today, but I do not believe that as a country we have to choose between religious belief and fairness for same-sex couples. It is important to remember that religious views on same-sex marriage differ, too. The Quakers, the Unitarians and the liberal Jewish communities have all said that they want to conduct same-sex marriages. Indeed, Paul Parker, who speaks for the Quakers, said that the first same-sex marriage in a Quaker meeting will be
	“a wonderful day for marriage, and…religious freedom”.
	We have to respect and take note of that.
	Our proposals will ensure that all religious organisations can act in accordance with their beliefs because equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith come at the cost of equal marriage. We are capable of accommodating both. This Bill does so in a very straightforward manner.

David Davies: Will the right hon. Lady assure us that, if at any time in the future the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a church not wishing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony was in breach of a discrimination Act, we would defy the European Court and not try to placate it as we did over prisoner voting?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend will find the sort of detail and the assurances he is looking for in a later part of my speech.

Toby Perkins: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of faith. I as a Christian have no worries about voting for this Bill. What greater example of the equalities agenda could there be than Jesus Christ himself?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which shows that views on this matter do not follow party lines or lines of membership of a particular religious institution, but are far more nuanced than that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Miller: Let me make a tiny bit of progress before taking further interventions.
	I shall now deal with the Bill’s provisions. As hon. Members will know, it has three parts. Part 1 enables same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies and allows religious organisations to opt in, while protecting those that do not. It also protects religious ministers and allows for the conversion of a civil partnership to a marriage. Part 2 enables an individual to change their legal gender without having to end their marriage. It also provides for overseas marriages in consulates or on armed forces bases. Part 3 allows for the standard final provisions, including secondary legislation.
	As hon. Members will have seen when they studied the detail of the Bill, I have been true to my word and ensured that there is clear protection of all religious organisations and ministers who are opposed to this measure. All religious organisations—whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or any other—will be able to decide for themselves if they want to conduct same-sex marriages. The Bill provides for and promotes religious freedom through the Government’s quadruple lock. These protections are absolutely carved on the face of the Bill and are the foundation on which the legislation is built.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister explain why the Government are bringing this Bill forward now when it was not in the Queen’s Speech, when it has not been the subject of a Green or a White Paper and when the Government promised to do other things, such as bring in married couple’s tax allowances, that they are not doing? Is not the truth of the matter that this is about low political calculation and detoxifying the Tory brand rather than anything to do with principle?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that. What we are doing is clearly an important part of the way in which we can make this country a fairer place in which to live, and the measure was clearly flagged up in our document “A Contract for Equalities” at the time of the election. I can tell him that we will continue to work with our colleagues in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is the right recognition of English and Welsh same-sex marriages in that part of the United Kingdom as well.

Andrew Selous: The Minister has referred to the protections in the Bill, but we have already seen the case of Mr Adrian Smith, who lost his job, spent an enormous amount of money on legal fees, and suffered a 40% cut in his salary after making a private comment on a Facebook site. How, in future, are we to protect people like Mr Smith who are working in the public sector up and down the country?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend, who I know takes a deep interest in these matters, is entirely right to raise that point, but the case he has highlighted proves that individuals can express their religious beliefs. The court found in that individual’s favour, which I think is important and should be noted by employers throughout the country.

Duncan Hames: The Minister has spoken about protections for religious ministers. Can she offer the same protections to registrars? Given that
	the number of mixed-sex marriages should not be expected to fall, can registrars be confident that even if they decline to take on and preside over the new same-sex marriage registrations, they will not lose their jobs or experience negative employment consequences?

Maria Miller: As my hon. Friend will know, civil registrars are public servants. Recent court rulings have made clear that they must balance carefully their right to a religious belief with their equal right to ensure that they provide services in a way that does not discriminate against individuals. It is a very difficult issue, but I know that he has raised it for the right reasons, and I am sure that it will be considered very closely in Committee.

Mike Freer: Roman Catholic Spain legalised same-sex marriage in 2005. Does my right hon. Friend know whether there has been a single referral to the European Court of Human Rights?

Maria Miller: None that I am aware of.

Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend failed to answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Can she tell the House, and the people of this country, where she has a mandate to inflict this massive social and cultural change? It was not in our party’s manifesto, and the Prime Minister told Adam Boulton on Sky that he had no plans to introduce it. There are many major issues with which the country needs to deal. This is an irrelevance, and it should not be pursued through the House, least of all with a three-line Whip on a programme motion that gives us no real opportunity to debate it.

Maria Miller: My fellow Hampshire Member and I know that we disagree on this matter, but we do so in a very fair and even-handed manner, and I want to ensure that that fairness and even-handedness are present in all aspects of the Government’s policy. I think that there is an extremely strong argument for the Bill to be passed, and I am presenting it today. The purpose of parliamentary debates is to discuss such matters in more detail.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Miller: I think that I should make a little more progress. I will take further interventions in a moment.
	I know that for many of my colleagues, the crux of the issue lies in the protections that I have mentioned, particularly the protections for the Church of England and the Church in Wales. They have a unique position because of the legal duty of their clergy to marry their parishioners, and furthermore, because the Church of England is the established Church, its canon law is part of the law of the land. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the Bill provides for no disadvantageous or, indeed, favourable treatment for the Church of England or the Church in Wales. It simply provides a pragmatic way of putting them in essentially the same position as other religious organisations. If they decide that they want to marry same-sex couples, they can do so.
	We have worked hard with a wide range of religious organisations, including both those Churches, to ensure that the protections in the Bill work. Indeed, the Church of England has commented on the constructive way in which we have consulted it about effective legal safeguards, ensuring that its concerns are properly accommodated. The Church in Wales has confirmed that the Bill gives it protection, while still enabling it to make its own decision on same-sex marriage.
	Let me now turn to an issue that has already been raised many times today: the question of legal protections and the European convention on human rights. There has been much discussion about the powers of the European Court of Human Rights, but I believe that its case law is clear: the question of whether—and if so, how—to allow same-sex marriage must be left to individual states to decide for themselves.
	“It is simply inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines.”
	Those are not my words, but the words of the eminent QCs Lord Pannick, Baroness Kennedy and Lord Lester.
	The belief that the Court would order the UK to require religious organisations to marry same-sex couples in contravention of their religious doctrine relies on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions. The first is that the Court would need to go against its own clear precedent that countries have wide discretion in the matter of same-sex marriage. The second is that the Court would need to decide that the interests of a same-sex couple who wanted a particular religious organisation to marry them outweighed the rights and beliefs of an entire faith and its congregation as a whole. The third is that the Court would need to discount the importance of article 9 of its own convention, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That would be rewriting the rules not just for one religious organisation in England and Wales, but for all religious organisations in all 47 states of the Council of Europe. I believe that such an outcome is inconceivable.

Sarah Wollaston: Our sexuality is fundamental to who we are. Surely the crux of the debate is the question of whether we accord equal rights, respect and esteem to people regardless of their sexuality.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend has made her point very powerfully. We need to ensure that, as a society, we treat people fairly. That is at the heart of what we are talking about today.

Margot James: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for religious freedom. Did she observe the Church of England’s statement at the weekend that it was not realistic or likely that churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings?

Maria Miller: I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to make that point, because I do not want anyone to leave the debate without the right information on which to base their voting decisions. She has underlined the importance of the facts.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Miller: I hope that Members will forgive me if I make a little more progress. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of interest in participating in the debate.
	Members also need to understand the wider consequences of the Bill. The introduction of equal marriage will not marginalise those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman—that is clearly a mainstream view—but neither will it continue to marginalise those who believe that marriage can, and should, also be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. We will not allow one belief to exist at the expense of the other. No misguided sense of political correctness will be allowed to impinge on that. It would be deeply divisive if, in righting a wrong for some, we created a wrong for others.
	No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views that go against their beliefs. No hospital chaplain or worker will have to believe in a new definition of marriage. No religious minister will have to conduct same-sex weddings. The changes that we are discussing will not affect anyone more than they are affected already by choosing to live in a society that values tolerance and respect among its citizens.

Angela Watkinson: Can my right hon. Friend think of anything in the Bill that would harm or disadvantage any heterosexual person, be they of faith or not, in any way whatsoever?

Maria Miller: No, I believe that strengthening marriage in the way we are talking about will be of benefit to all people in our society.

David Burrowes: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that she would not introduce a Bill to this House if it in any way impinged on the religious freedom of Churches or ministers. If, during the passage of this Bill, attempts are made by Members—from all parts of this House, given that we have a free vote—to unpick those locks or find other ways to introduce same-sex marriage into the Churches, will she then withdraw her support for the Bill?

Maria Miller: The Church of England itself has made clear the importance of keeping the protections that we have in place as they are, and I join my hon. Friend in saying that any manoeuvres such as he describes would be counter-productive.

David Wright: One key issue that has been raised with me is how schools, particularly faith schools, will handle the curriculum in relation to this matter. I am inclined to support the Bill, but will the right hon. Lady say a little more on this issue? She mentioned teachers, but how will this be handled in the school curriculum, particularly in faith schools?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right to bring that out in more detail. He will, of course, have read the Education Secretary’s words on this, which were reported widely over the weekend. The point to make clearly to the House is that teachers would, of course, be expected to explain—and as professionals, they would—the law on marriage, but what we never would expect a teacher
	to do is promote something that ran contrary to their beliefs or their religious beliefs. That is an important point to make, and perhaps it clears up some of the misunderstandings in some of the literature that has been put around in respect of today’s debate.

Julian Brazier: rose—

Maria Miller: I cannot say no to my hon. Friend, but then I must wind up my remarks.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has taken a lot of interventions. She says that nobody will be forced to teach anything that goes against their conscience, but what will be the position for faith schools that wish to promote a particular Christian view, or indeed other faith view, of marriage? Will they continue to be allowed to do so? Will she guarantee that no teacher who actively does so will be sued or prosecuted?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend will know that clear provisions are already in place for faith groups and faith schools to be able to talk about their beliefs on issues such as marriage. As with many other areas, be they to do with divorce or with children being born outside marriage, teachers have to deal with the issues sensitively. That, of course, is the point he is getting at. Just to reiterate, we would expect teachers, as professionals, to explain these issues to the children they teach, but we would in no way require them to promote something that did not accord with their belief—their faith—and I think that is right.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Maria Miller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will conclude in order to give individuals the time to make their own contributions.
	Despite all the discussion and debate, this Bill is about one thing—fairness. It is about giving those who want to get married the opportunity to do so, while protecting the rights of those who do not agree with same-sex marriage. Marriage is one of the most important institutions we have; it binds families and society together, and it is a building block that promotes stability. This Bill supports and cultivates marriage, and I commend it to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the speech by the Minister for Women and Equalities and commend her on the manner in which she made it, while often under pressure. I also commend the considerable thoughtfulness and integrity with which she put her points today. I strongly support the approach she has taken, because today Parliament has the chance to support loving couples who want to get married. It has the chance to make some of the same-sex couples I have spoken to in the past few weeks very happy, as they could finally set a date for their wedding. I hope we will support the Bill today to give those couples the chance to wed, to be married and to have their relationship celebrated and valued by the state in the same way as everyone else’s.

Philip Davies: During the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill in 2004, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) pointed out to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting next to the right hon. Lady, that that Bill would inevitably lead on to gay marriage. The hon. Gentleman replied:
	“The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken… I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense…because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 228.]
	What has changed since then?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has since celebrated his own civil partnership as a result of that Bill. I am sure that he would have happily invited the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), had he had the chance to do so.
	Let me deal with how civil partnerships are different. Civil partnerships have been a hugely important step forward and Labour Members are proud that our Government introduced them some years ago, but it is right that we now take the additional step of introducing equal marriage across the country. Of course people have strong views on marriage—on their own marriage and on other people’s—and I understand that some in this House are strongly opposed to the Bill. I respect their views although I disagree with them. I hope that is the spirit in which this debate will take place today.

Christopher Chope: The right hon. Lady talks about equality, so why are Labour Members not arguing in favour of heterosexual couples being able to access civil partnerships?

Yvette Cooper: That is a separate issue, on which there was no consultation. I am sure that there will be a debate on that in due course later in our consideration of the Bill, and I know that people have different views on it. I believe that the case for equal marriage is a very powerful one.

Kevin Brennan: Is not the essential point that what was once the love that dared not speak its name will now have not only recognition in law, but equality before the law? Is that not something we should be proud of as a House?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is completely right to say that this Parliament should have pride in giving people equal rights to be respected and to have their relationships celebrated in the same way.

Jack Dromey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the institution of marriage can only be strengthened if in future all citizens enjoy equality before the law and the ability to marry the person they love, regardless of their gender?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Couples who love each other should be able to get married, regardless of their gender and sexuality. We should enjoy that and we should celebrate that. We all love a good wedding: we pause when we walk by a church or a registry office
	and we smile at the couple coming out in a cloud of confetti, because we think it is a great thing that a couple want to get married and want to celebrate that.

Nadine Dorries: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in this wonderful, tolerant and free society we live in, real equality exists when we can celebrate our differences?

Yvette Cooper: We should certainly celebrate the chance for people to get married. We should celebrate the fact that different couples want to get married—that is exactly what we should support. This is not just about the wedding; we love a wedding, but we also all love the idea of a long, stable marriage. We love the idea of a golden or diamond wedding anniversary, where the couple are still caring for each other, even though they are bickering over the biscuits. We also all clearly like a good party, too.

Stewart Jackson: The right hon. Lady is asking us to accept her party’s bona fides in respecting religious freedom. Why did she fail to include views of traditional marriage as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, and fail to support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on the same issue last week?

Yvette Cooper: I do not think it is right for individual views within individual faiths to all be protected characteristics under the Equality Act. I do not think that is the appropriate way to go.
	We all love the idea of a wedding, we all support the idea of a strong marriage and, clearly, we all like a good party. I notice that the Department’s impact assessment suggests that passing the Bill could lead to an extra £14 million being spent on celebrations, which is a lot of confetti and rubber chicken. I do not think that it will be quite enough to boost the economy and deliver plan B, but I guess the Chancellor needs all the help he can get.
	Call us hopeless romantics or call it the triumph of hope over experience, but most of us think that when people love each other and want to make that long-term commitment, that is a wonderful thing. Why would we prevent a loving couple from getting married just because they are gay?

Mark Pawsey: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that she is confusing marriage with weddings? They are different things.

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so gloomy about the fun of a wedding, which most of us think is an enjoyable way of starting off a marriage. I hope that he celebrates golden wedding anniversaries, diamond wedding anniversaries and long-term marriage.

Toby Perkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of the people who argued strongly and passionately against civil partnerships just a few years ago have no argument with them now and recognise that they have been a success? Perhaps in a few years’ time, the argument will have moved on and we will all be able to recognise that equality in our country is a good thing.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Members of this House who opposed civil partnerships now strongly support them. Members of the House of Lords, including bishops, voted against civil partnerships when they were introduced, yet many in the Church now support blessings for civil partnerships. Attitudes have changed and it is right that they have. We should support that and support them as they change further.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I want to make a little progress.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but the facts paint a very different picture. Since same-sex marriages were introduced in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, the number of mixed-sex marriages have decreased considerably—indeed, by tens and tens of thousands—[Interruption.] The facts are clear. When they were introduced in Spain, 208,000 people were married in mixed-sex marriages, whereas last year 161,000 people were married in mixed-sex marriages, so the numbers are declining, not increasing. The introduction of this legislation could reduce the number of parties in which the right hon. Lady appears to be interested.

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the long-term trends in marriage across a series of different countries, including those that have same-sex marriage and those that do not, he will struggle to find a causal connection suggesting that the fact that some gay and lesbian couples can now get married means that heterosexual couples are all running from the church door or the registry office.
	It is worth hearing why many gay and lesbian couples say they want to get married. One gay man told me:
	“My parents have a really strong marriage—I’ve always seen how meaningful and important it is. We want the same thing—it’s hard to explain but its about the value of our relationship. I want my nieces and nephews to feel that Uncle Adam and Uncle James are getting married, just like their Mum and Dad.”
	Another said,
	“we want to have the same celebration and status as our parents and grandparents—it’s about being normal. I want to have children. But I believe children are brought up better in a married relationship.”
	Someone else said,
	“I asked the question, ‘Simon will you marry me’ he said yes. I said ‘Marry me’, not ‘would you like a civil partnership’”.
	Civil partnerships have been a fantastic step forward, providing for the first time proper legal recognition for same-sex relationships, and they continue to be a great source of great joy and of security. It was right of Labour to introduce them in the face of deep controversy, but it is time to take the next step for equality and to allow gay and lesbian couples the chance to marry if they choose to.
	Another person reminded me of the practical differences that some people face when they are in a civil partnership. They have to declare their sexuality every time they fill in a form for something such as a mortgage or insurance,
	as there is a different box for someone in a civil partnership than for someone who is married. Why should they have to? Another person said:
	“Language does matter. Marriage is universally understood as a meaningful commitment. People might say that in time civil partnerships will mean exactly the same. We say: ‘why wait?’”
	Why should they wait—they want to celebrate their relationship now—when they could get married?

Lucy Powell: I am delighted to support the debate and that I will be voting for the Bill, partly because I have been overwhelmed by the number of young people in my constituency who got in touch with me to ask me to do so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that generational issues make up an element of the debate? Most of my constituents who support the Bill have been younger, whereas those who have been against it have been, let us say, in the later stage of life.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. One poll showed that two thirds of people overall supported same-sex marriage, whereas 80% of those under 50 supported equal marriage. That shows the strong positive feeling on this subject.

Craig Whittaker: There has been a lot of talk about equality and fairness from Members on both sides of the House. Would the right hon. Lady like to hazard a guess as to why the word “equal” has been taken out of the title of the Bill? Perhaps it is because it is not quite as equal as the Government first expected.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman obviously has some detail in mind. The fundamental principle behind the Bill is to support equal marriage, as it allows same-sex marriages to go ahead. It is right that the law should do that. I am sure that there will be debates in Committee about the precise detail.

David Lammy: Does my right hon. Friend, like me, hope that the House will approach this matter with a sense of atonement? As she will recognise, in the 1960s the men and women who attended those first Pride marches in Trafalgar square following Stonewall were beaten by the police while this House looked in the other direction. Will she pay tribute to the leaders of London councils— people such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), as well as former Members for Brent and for Tottenham—who stood in the face of clause 28 because they chose to make a book called “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” available in their libraries?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right that there has been immense discrimination over many years, including recently. People who are gay, lesbian or bisexual have faced considerable prejudice, including violence. This House has a duty to stand up against violence and discrimination and to stand up for the interests of equality.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I want to make some progress, as I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak and that the time restrictions are considerable. Once I have done so, I will allow the Government Members who are standing up to intervene. I know that somebody behind me wanted to intervene, too.
	Parliament should not stop people getting married just because they have fallen in love with someone of the same sex, and we should not say that same-sex relationships are intrinsically worth less. I know that many Members have raised objections: they fear that their Church or faith will be forced to hold same-sex marriages when they do not believe in it; they believe that, by definition, marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been through the centuries; they believe that at the heart of marriage is the biological procreation of children; or they fear that widening marriage will undermine other relationships, stability and society. I disagree with each of those four objections, but I know they are held strongly by people whose views I respect, so I will address each of them in turn.
	The first is the fear that Churches will be expected to support same-sex marriage in future. It is clear that they will not have to. I thought that the Minister for Women and Equalities powerfully explained the safeguards in the Bill. We have a long tradition in Britain of respecting religious freedom, which is built into our law and traditions.

Gavin Barwell: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, as I promised to do so to other Members first.
	The number of clauses in the Bill that deal directly with religion is unusual and is reflected in the decision of all parties to hold free votes. Freedom of religion is rightly protected in the Bill, as the Minister set out. No Church or religious organisation can be required to conduct same-sex marriage, nor can an individual minister, and if a religious organisation or an individual minister refuses to hold same-sex marriages, that will not count as discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The right hon. Lady set out in some detail her double, tripe, quadruple, even quintuple locks, and she has a padlock, Yale lock, bolt, chain and even burglar alarm as well. I hope, however, that she agrees that Churches should be able to change their mind to support same sex marriage in future if they want to, without unnecessary hurdles and barriers. The Church of England and the Church in Wales have additional hurdles built into the Bill which we need to scrutinise in Committee.

David Burrowes: I should like to draw out the central issue, which is the understanding of marriage. The right hon. Lady will accept that the institution of marriage is not simply beholden to and owned by a particular view, whether it is the Church or secular, or whether people are gay, married, and so on. It is a social institution valued by all. Does she agree, for example, with the gay writer and blogger, Richard Waghorn, who says:
	“The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families”
	changes under the Bill
	“to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance”?

Yvette Cooper: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I will deal specifically with whether extending marriage in this way will have an impact on wider family life and the stability of society—it is a point with which I disagree—but I pay tribute to the important work that he has done to tackle homophobic bullying.

Tim Loughton: In 2004, I voted enthusiastically for the Civil Partnership Bill. The right hon. Lady did not at that time—I am sure that she had good reasons. That measure gave full equality in the eyes of the law for people in same-sex relationships. Were either of us homophobic for not going for full marriage at the time? What exactly has happened in the past nine years? Is not the problem that we need to address not a lack of equality in the law, but a lack of equality, in some people’s eyes, in society? Just changing the name of a ceremony will not address that.

Yvette Cooper: I have addressed that point before. I have always strongly supported civil partnerships: I think that they were the right thing for the Labour Government to do at the time. However, I also think that attitudes have changed and moved on—it is good that they have done so—and it is the right time to introduce same-sex marriage.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I need to make progress, as other hon. Members wish to make a contribution. However, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).

Jim Cunningham: Something that I have detected in correspondence is a fear that, contrary to the assurances that we have been given, the Bill will, at a later date, be revisited and unpicked. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?

Yvette Cooper: I think that freedom of religion—an issue about which many hon. Members have expressed concern—is built very strongly not just into the Bill, but into our traditions and our long-term political history. It is something that we have always valued and I suspect that Parliament will always want to defend it. There are further safeguards in article 9 of the European convention. I agree with the Minister for Women and Equalities that it is inconceivable that the European Court would tell a Church or faith group to hold same-sex weddings. Despite the fact that many countries across Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Belgium, already have same-sex marriages, there have been no successful challenges in the European courts, and the Minister is right that the European Court allows a wide margin of appreciation.
	We will want to discuss in Committee the issues affecting, for example, the Church in Wales. If it decided to support gay marriage in future, that could be subject to a veto by the Lord Chancellor and would require a separate vote in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that can be examined in Committee.
	Religious freedom goes both ways. Churches that object should not be required to sign up to same-sex marriage, but nor they should be able to block everyone else doing so. Other people do want to sign up. Polling
	has found that a majority of people support same-sex marriage, and Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Jews all want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. The Government originally ruled that out, but we argued that religious marriages should be included if organisations want that. I welcome the Government’s change of heart. Let us be clear: no one group, organisation, faith or institution owns marriage. Religious organisations should not be required to hold same-sex weddings, but neither, in the spirit of freedom of religion, should they prevent other religious organisations or the state from doing so.
	Other objections have been raised. Some people argue that marriage by definition has always—for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years—been between a man and a woman and should remain so. For some people, that is their faith, and under the Bill their faith can be respected, but that is no reason not to change the law. It is hardly surprising that for thousands of years same-sex couples were not allowed to marry—they were not even allowed to exist. Same sex was illegal, never mind same-sex marriage. Legal sex by definition was between a man and a woman—that, too, was the case for thousands of years—but no one says that we should turn the clock back.
	We cannot hide discrimination simply by calling it a definition. Marriage has changed many times over the centuries—and thank goodness for that. For hundreds of years, women were treated as property in marriage, handed from their fathers to their husbands and denied rights of their own. Until the 1990s, women’s bodies were effectively treated as their husbands’ property. If a husband raped his wife, it was not even treated as a crime. Civil marriage was introduced over 170 years ago and was pretty radical at the time, but now, every year, 160,000 of us get married in a civil ceremony. Marriage has changed before, and it should change again.
	Some people oppose same-sex marriage because they believe that marriage is by definition about the procreation of children. However, that is not true of civil marriage, and that has been the case for over a century. Many marriages are childless, and we do not prevent people who are too old or too sick to have children from getting married. We do not do fertility tests at the altar. Yes, in vast numbers of families, marriage is an important starting point for a loving family bringing up children, but gay couples bring up children too. As people live longer, the family commitments involved in marriage are much wider than bringing up children.
	Most MPs will know the sadness but also the inspiration they have drawn from visiting a long-married couple where, for example, the wife is struggling to cope, struggling to remember the world around her and struggling to recognise even the husband with whom she has shared decades of her life, yet he carries on: cooking for her, washing her, getting her up, putting her to bed, talking to her even as she becomes a stranger in front of him. That is marriage. But I have also visited a gay man, who died some years ago after a long illness during which he was cared for every day at home, in hospital and eventually in a hospice, by his long-term gay partner. I do not see why that cannot be marriage too. The idea that the biology of procreation should deny same-sex couples the respect that comes with marriage is to ignore the full richness—the happiness but also the tragedies—of modern family life. For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health: that is marriage.
	Finally, with those who argue that extending marriage to include same-sex couples will somehow weaken or undermine marriage and stability for everyone else, I profoundly disagree. Marriage has changed many times before and society has not collapsed. Other countries are doing this and their Churches and societies have not fallen apart. Spain—Catholic Spain—has had same-sex marriage since 2004. Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Portugal, Argentina and South Africa all celebrate same-sex marriage. Only last week France passed the first vote on the way to same-sex marriage. The President of the United States is in favour of equal marriage too.
	If the same-sex couples who have told me of their love for each other are able to get married, that will not weaken marriage; it will strengthen it. It certainly will not make it any less likely that the heterosexual couple with kids who live next door to them will stay together. If marriage is to stay relevant, to stay important and to remain a crucial part of our family and social relationships, it also has to remain in tune with the values of every generation, and that means that it should keep up with rightly changing attitudes towards homosexuality. The truth is that gay and lesbian couples have been locked out of too much for too long.

Menzies Campbell: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a kind of inevitability about what many of us are hoping will be decided here this evening? We discriminated against women, we discriminated against Catholics, we discriminated against people from ethnic minorities, but very gradually and not always completely but perceptibly, this House has passed legislation to remove such discrimination. Is not this evening yet another example and another opportunity to do so?

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that this is the next step on a journey, and it is the right one. We should not resist the values of the majority of people across the country who now support same-sex marriage.

David Davies: rose—

Yvette Cooper: We have discriminated for too long. Until the 1960s people were locked up or punished for loving someone of the same sex. Gay men were told by the Home Secretary even in the 1950s that they were a “plague” on this country. Lesbian women were forced to hide their relationships, and teenagers were bullied at school, with no protection. Until the early 1990s teachers were unable to tell the child of a same-sex couple that their family was okay, for fear that that would breach section 28. So much has changed, and in a short time, too.

David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Yvette Cooper: Labour in government equalised the age of consent, ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces and made homophobia a hate crime—measures that were controversial at the time, yet now have widespread support. That is why I am pleased that the vast majority of Labour MPs have said that
	they will support the Bill today. We have come a long way, and with each step forward the sky has not fallen in, family life has not fallen apart, and the predictions that passionate opponents made at the time have not come true. Those opponents have for the most part changed their minds and moved on. I hope the same will be true again.

David Winnick: On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?

Yvette Cooper: I give way, one final time, to my hon. Friend.

David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate on this day, when we are debating this subject, to bear in mind, among all those who were persecuted, Alan Turing, one of the most distinguished scientists of all, who committed suicide arising from the harassment that he suffered as a homosexual? He should be remembered, along with so many other people who were persecuted and disgraced simply because of their sexuality.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. As a society we should feel deeply ashamed of what happened to Alan Turing, who was a hero of this country.

David Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I hope—

David Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope it is not a point of frustration from the hon. Gentleman.

David Davies: The right hon. Lady has taken an intervention from her hon. Friend. When will she take an intervention from the Government Benches?

Mr Speaker: I note the point. It is not a point of order but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record.

Yvette Cooper: May I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) that I have taken interventions from many hon. Members on both sides? Given the number of people on the Government Benches who are desperate to speak in the debate, I am keen to allow them the opportunity to do so, even though they have strong disagreements with each other.
	Often the opponents of previous measures have changed their minds and moved on. I hope the same will be true again. I hope that opponents today will look back in 10 years and be unable to remember what the fuss was about. Today, let us vote for people to be able to marry, for the sake of those couples who really want to wed; for the sake of the Quakers, the Unitarians and other religious organisations who want to celebrate same-sex marriage as part of our respect for freedom of faith; for the sake of equality, removing unfair discrimination and challenging prejudice; and for the sake of marriage, to keep it inclusive and in touch for the next generation. In marriage let us celebrate, not discriminate. Let us be on the right side of history. Let us vote for the Bill today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, who has designated responsibilities in the House, will be subject to a 10-minute limit. Thereafter, a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will apply.

Tony Baldry: I am confident that we are all created in the image of God, whether we be straight, gay, bisexual, or transsexual. We are all equally worthy in God’s sight and equally loved by God. I am also sure that we are and should be equally welcome at God’s table. But equalness does not always equate with being the same.
	For centuries, civilisations have recognised the value and importance to society of having an enduring and exclusive union between one man and one woman, not least for the raising and nurturing of children. That relationship is called marriage. The uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the distinctiveness of men and women, so removing that complementarity from the definition of marriage is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.
	The Government clearly well appreciate the value of marriage. Indeed, one of the points about the legislation before the House today is that the Bill makes no provision for heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships. Clearly, policy makers considered that allowing heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships would undermine the institution of marriage. So what this legislation will do is to end the concept of marriage as it has been understood by society in general and by almost all faith groups in particular for recorded time.
	Each of us will have to decide how we vote on this matter, according to our consciences and on a free vote. I shall vote against the Bill. From the outset, Ministers have made it clear that they intend that the legislation will give protection and ensure that Churches that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages are not forced to do so. That is consistent with the legislation relating to civil partnerships, where it is for faith groups as a whole to decide to opt into the legislation to allow civil partnerships to be registered on their premises.
	It may be helpful to the House if I, in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner, make clear to the House the views of the Church of England on the provisions that the Government have included to safeguard religious freedoms. Let me make it clear that I entirely accept the Government’s good faith in this matter and am appreciative, as is the Bishop of Leicester, who convenes the Bishops in the other place, and as are senior Church officials, of the attempts the Government have made. The Government rightly wish to ensure that every Church and denomination can reach its own conclusion on these matters and be shielded so far as possible from the risk of litigation.
	The so-called quadruple locks are sensible and necessary. It was unfortunate a couple of months ago when the Government were talking in terms of “banning” the Church of England and the Church in Wales from doing anything, because that was a completely misleading account, and I am pleased to see that nothing of that kind now features in the Bill or in the Minister’s explanation. The simple point is that the Church of England and the
	Church in Wales have not wanted anything different in substance from all other Churches and faiths—namely, to be left entirely free to determine their own doctrine and practice in relation to marriage.
	Achieving that is slightly more complex in relation to the Church in Wales because, at disestablishment, it retained the common law duty to marry all parishioners. It is even more complicated in relation to the Church of England because as well as the common law duty, its canon law remains part of the law of the land and it also has its own devolved legislature which, with Parliament’s agreement, can amend Church legislation and Westminster legislation. So I am grateful to the Government for trying to get these matters right. By and large, I think they have done so.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I shall not give way because I am conscious that a large number of colleagues wish to speak in the debate and I do not wish to be selfish.
	I should be grateful, however, if my right hon. Friend the Minister could confirm that clause 11(5) might still benefit from some further attention, given the need to avoid her having to act as the arbiter in relation to particular areas of the ecclesiastical common law. This is an area where time ran out in the discussions, and I hope that the Government will be open to some further drafting changes if they can be agreed during the passage of the Bill.
	Before I leave the question of the locks, let me be clear that we think that the Government have done their best in these, given their intention to introduce same-sex marriage. But, as many other commentators have made clear, there is an inevitable degree of risk in all this, given that it would ultimately be for the courts, and in particular the Strasbourg court, to decide whether provisions in the legislation are compatible with the European convention on human rights. There is absolutely no doubt that once marriage is redefined in this very fundamental way, a number of new legal questions will arise and no one can be sure what the eventual outcome will be. The Government believe that this is a risk worth taking. The Church of England does not. As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church does not, and nor do a number of other faith groups, including the Muslim faith.
	The Bill has raised a number of extremely difficult second-order issues. Although the failure to consummate a marriage will still be a ground on which a heterosexual marriage can be voidable, the Bill provides that consummation is not to be a ground on which a marriage of a same-sex couple will be voidable. It also provides that adultery is to have its existing definition—namely, sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. It therefore follows that divorce law for heterosexual couples will be fundamentally different from divorce law for same-sex couples, because for heterosexual couples the matrimonial offence of adultery will persist while there will be no similar matrimonial offence in relation to same-sex marriage. The fact that officials have been unable to apply these long-standing concepts to same-sex marriage is a further demonstration of just how problematic is the concept of same-sex marriage. Clearly, every right hon. and hon. Member will have to come to an individual
	judgment on these issues, in accordance with our own consciences, and the House will accordingly come to a collective judgment.
	On the specific protections that the Government are seeking to give to Churches that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages, I believe that they are being done in the best of faith and as robustly as the Government feel able, but I simply reiterate that there is no way in which any of us can know just how robust these protections will be until they are tested in the courts. Notwithstanding the genuine efforts that the Government have made to protect Churches that do not wish to celebrate same-sex marriages, the Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony. Such a move will alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Moreover, changing the nature of marriage for everyone will deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.

Robert Flello: I am deeply saddened by the divisions and upset that this issue has caused to people on both sides of the argument. Sadly, in some quarters the divisions arise because the debate has been characterised as bigoted religion on the one hand versus equality on the other. Neither of those is true. True Christians are not bigoted, and this is not a matter of equality, no matter how often it is referred to as equal marriage. Some of the divisions arise from the campaign to steer people into thinking that marriage is simply about love and commitment. It could also be said that the Bill falls foul of Parliament’s convention of not legislating retrospectively, because changing the fundamental nature of marriage will affect existing marriages.
	Under the law as it stands, as tested in the European Court of Human Rights, civil partnerships are equal to marriage. They might not have the same name, but they are equal. It has been argued that society views marriage and civil partnerships as being different and that same-sex couples feel that their relationship is not valued by society in the same way as is marriage. However, it is not even 10 years since civil partnerships were created, and already society has moved ahead in its appreciation of the commitment that those formal partnerships demonstrate.

Angela Smith: As an atheist, I enjoyed the right to get married outside the Church. Surely those who do believe have a right to get married within their Church?

Robert Flello: I will come to that in a moment.
	Perhaps the parts of society that do not view civil partnerships as being exactly identical to marriage do so because a large proportion of society views marriage as being about the union of a man and a woman for the creation and care of children, and not simply about the love and commitment of the happy couple, as important as that is. On the other hand, civil partnerships are a celebration and recognition of the love and commitment that two people of the same gender have for each other.
	The state has sought to treat marriage in a special way in recognition of its intrinsically child-centred nature. That is the only reason why the state has previously had any interest in marriage at all. If marriage were simply about love and commitment, we would first have to define love as being sexual love, because otherwise non-sexual relationships that are based on love and commitment would also have to be treated as marriage on the basis of the definition of equality. If the definition of marriage is simply love and commitment, why is the state interested at all? What business is it of the state’s to register and record such unions? It is because marriage is about so much more that the state has historically wanted to be involved.

Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the state has intervened in marriage for several reasons, one of which relates to property and has nothing to do with children?

Robert Flello: I fully accept that the state has changed some aspects of marriage, but not its intrinsic, fundamental values.
	The irony of the Bill is that it takes the current situation of equality of marriage and civil partnership and creates inequality. Under the terms of the Bill, there will be marriage in two forms—traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, which are neither the same nor equal. The Bill creates further inequality, with traditional marriages being allowed within some Churches and same-sex marriages not allowed. Same-sex couples will have the choice of civil partnership or marriage, whereas opposite-sex couples can have only traditional marriages—yet more inequality. The Bill is trying to engineer a cultural equivalence to tackle a perceived lack of equality in wider society. That does not sound to me like the basis of marriage.
	The Government say that the Bill protects religious organisations, but there are conflicting legal opinions that robustly challenge that view. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop a future Government legislating to allow, or indeed require, Churches to celebrate same-sex marriages. In fact, some commentators have said that they cannot wait until the Church of England and other faiths have to conduct same-sex marriages. Given that the Bill creates inequality, a legal challenge would surely be successful.
	I am amazed that the Government should bring forward this Bill at a time when there are other pressing issues. Despite having gay friends and relatives, the issue of same-sex marriage has never once been brought to my attention; I have never had a constituent write to me asking me to raise it. I recall that many MPs were quick to praise the civil partnerships legislation as being everything that the gay community wanted—that it created the equality for which they had fought for so long. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I hope he is still my hon. Friend—has previously said that in his view the idea that the gay community would want marriage is nonsense.
	Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that is open to the creation and care of children—not in all cases, but fundamentally that is its intrinsic value. This Bill will fundamentally change that. Despite all the issues that have been raised and the insults hurled by those on both sides of the argument, I will oppose the
	Bill. I believe that it creates inequality and that it does not tackle an existing inequality on the basis that the current legislation has been tested in the European Court and it has been shown that there is no inequality. I will oppose the Bill, and I urge any right hon. and hon. Members who are thinking of abstaining to vote against it.

Nadine Dorries: It is a pleasure to follow such a wise speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and I will follow on from his main point.
	This Bill does not create equality. It highlights the inequalities that will always exist, because the definition of marriage is based on the definition of sex. It is absolutely impossible to shoehorn same-sex marriage into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to provide equality. The gay lobby have said themselves in their campaigning that they have been looking for a Bill that will give them the same rights as heterosexual couples and enable them to enjoy faithful and committed relationships. This Bill in no way makes a requirement of faithfulness from same-sex couples; in fact, it does the opposite. In a heterosexual marriage, a couple can divorce on the grounds of adultery, and the legal requirement for adultery to have taken place is that someone has had sex with a member of the opposite sex.
	In a heterosexual marriage, a couple vow to forsake all others. They are basically saying, in accordance with liturgy and the 1973 Act, “I will forsake all others because to you I will be faithful in honour of our vows and my faithfulness to us and our marriage.” A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow. They do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery; there is no requirement of faithfulness. If there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?
	The Minister says that there is no requirement for consummation in a marriage. No, there is not, but a marriage is voidable without consummation. There is no requirement for consummation in the Bill because the definition of marriage and the definition of sex is for ordinary and complete sex to have taken place. Same-sex couples cannot meet this requirement. The Government have tucked this aspect right at the back of the Bill, possibly because they do not want it to be debated in Committee. That is sad, because it is part of the inequality. If I were part of a gay couple, I would feel like a poor relation as a result of this Bill. I would feel that it was a shoddy Bill in which gay couples are not as well considered as heterosexual couples. It highlights the inequalities.
	Gosh, I am down to one minute left. I hope that the Minister will elucidate on one point. Mr Tatchell apparently said outside the gates of Downing street that the Prime Minister had been inspired by his words and that the Prime Minister used lines from his speech to promote the Bill. I admire Mr Tatchell—he is a brave man who says what he thinks and I respect his right to do that—but he also says that, on this issue, equality is not enough and that he is part of a movement of social revolutionaries who are out to turn society and the world upside down. Will the Minister please tell us that Mr Tatchell has not inspired this Bill and that it is not based on his words, and will she repudiate the overall intentions of Mr Tatchell and his lobby?

Toby Perkins: Today is a significant day for Britain as an equal nation. Today is about equality, but it is also about one of the fundamental principles that I think each of the political parties represented in this House recognises, namely that, basically, we should live and let live: we should let people get on with their own lives and give people who are gay the same basic rights that the rest of us enjoy.
	I have received a tremendous amount of representations and the vast majority from those on both sides of the argument have been respectful and passionate and have reflected deeply-held views. I have had three meetings with objectors in Chesterfield to understand their objections and, if this Bill passes its Second Reading, I will have further meetings with them to understand the actual detail. As hon. Members will know, a Second Reading debate is about the central principles of a Bill. Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), say that the Bill has flaws, but if Government Members were to vote against every Bill because of an occasional flaw, the Government would never get anything past Second Reading. We need to understand that what we are talking about today is the principles, which are of central importance.
	I recognise that some people—predominantly older members of society—are worried about the way the world is changing and the things that they are seeing. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that there is no compulsion on faith groups to do anything and that, while the Church of England will have the opportunity to opt in, it will not be forced to do something that it does not want to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) also made very well the point that marriage belongs to all of us, rather than simply to religious groups. I am also glad that the Minister has confirmed that there will be no requirement on teachers to promote gay marriage and that, in fact, as with civil partnerships, the Bill will make no difference to the questions they might be asked. That is important, because some of my constituents were concerned about it.
	As a Christian, I see Christianity as a tremendously generous religion. As I have said previously, I think that Jesus Christ led the way on promoting equalities. There are any number of stories in the Bible that make it absolutely clear that Jesus stuck up for groups that had been oppressed over the years. As a Christian, I feel entirely comfortable voting in favour of this Bill. As someone who got married at the famous Crooked Spire church in Chesterfield, I do not think that my marriage will be besmirched or undermined in any way by the fact that gay people in the future might also be able to say that they are married.
	Some of those who have written to me seem to believe that the argument is about whether heterosexuality or homosexuality is better. They seem to argue that, because gay marriage will be an option, some young people will suddenly decide that they are not straight anymore, but gay.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that this is about equal respect for everybody?

Toby Perkins: Absolutely. I have never said this in political terms before, but at the end of her life my mother was gay. It was difficult for me as a young man growing up in Sheffield to think that my friends might discover that. People do not deserve to live in that way, so this is fundamentally about mutual respect. I think that is why the majority of people, as polls have shown, ultimately support the proposal. They recognise that people are made differently and have a right to enjoy the same things as others.

Gloria De Piero: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many strands to the views of the religious community? One of my constituents contacted me to say:
	“Our church have advised us to write to you opposing gay marriage. Forgive me if I don’t…Marriage is a matter of love, love is for all, not a select few.”

Toby Perkins: Indeed. That is an incredibly important point. This whole debate reminds me of a colleague on Chesterfield borough council who recalled that, when he told one of the older councillors that homosexuality had been legalised— thinking that he would be appalled—the response was that he did not mind it being legalised so long as it was not made compulsory. I think that many people in Britain will recognise those basic principles.
	On the question of whether there was a manifesto commitment, I have read the Conservative party’s “A Contract for Equalities”, which makes it absolutely clear that the Government will consider gay marriage. When I debated the subject with the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) this morning, she informed me that when she stood for election she was not aware that the Conservatives had a contract for equality. Perhaps that says something about how we need to start putting equalities at the top of the agenda. It is important, however, that the Conservative party had been talking about the issue.
	Finally, today is a very important day and I think that in years to come we will look back on it with pride and say that we made the right decision. There is still time to discuss some of the detail and there will be an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and for people to make further representations, but today is about saying that we recognise that there is a place for gay people in our society and that they have the right to enjoy the same respect for their relationships as the rest of us enjoy for ours. I hope that Members will support that.

Stephen Gilbert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who has articulated what many people of faith across our country have struggled with before coming to the conclusion that love should be for one and all and that marriage should not be an exclusive institution.
	I declare an interest: I am a gay man who grew up in a rural part of our country in Cornwall and am from a working-class background. I grew up 20-odd years ago in an environment that made it hugely difficult for me to be open, honest and up-front with my family, friends and workmates about the choices I wanted to take in life and the people I wanted to see. That was unacceptable
	20-odd years ago and it is unacceptable today, but it remains the case for many hundreds of thousands of people across our country.
	I welcome this historic Bill, which I think will end a form of discrimination and, perhaps more crucially, send a signal that this House values everybody equally across our country. That signal will deeply affect people like me in the same way as I was affected 20 years ago, when I saw this House vote to equalise the age of consent. That was the first time I saw other gay people on a TV screen and it was the first time that I realised that I was not alone. It changed my life.
	As we all take this historic step, we should remember that 70 years ago thousands of gay men and lesbian women were put to death in the concentration camps, 40 years ago thousands more were criminalised and had their lives ruined, and 30 years ago people were still being subjected to scientific torment in search of a cure. We have come a long way in a short time, but it is absolutely right that this House takes the next step and delivers full legal equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in our country.
	I say to those hon. Members who will say, “Well, of course he would say that, because he’s a gay man,” my view is born of a hatred of discrimination and prejudice of all types, whether it be about gender, skin colour or religion. As a community, we should value diversity and treat everybody equally. Those values are enshrined in Cornwall’s motto, “One and All”. That is the community I grew up in and it is a community I am proud to represent—one that values community. The motto is not, “One and All, apart from if you’re black, Catholic or gay.” It is a community that distrusts the abuse of power. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Minister is right to have ensured that this House will not compel people or religious organisations to do anything that they choose not to do. We have struck the right balance between ensuring that there is equality and preserving religious freedom.
	As a House, we must question those who wish to hoard privilege for themselves. We know that marriage is an important institution that delivers many benefits, including stability, health and happiness. If we recognise those benefits, why would we keep them from some of our neighbours who seek to enjoy them and whose faith allows them to do so? We would not tolerate that level of discrimination in any other sphere of life and we should end it tonight in this one.
	Equal marriage will not be the end of the struggle for gay equality, in the same way that delivering the franchise to women and ending apartheid were not the end of those battles. However, it will allow us to start asking the right questions and to answer the other problems, and it will send a clear signal that we value everybody equally.

Jim Dobbin: I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on his honest and open contribution to this debate.
	I will give my personal view, which I know differs from the views of the vast majority of members of my party. I respect that difference.
	For the first time in history, a Government have proposed a Bill that will change the very nature of marriage in law. Until now, society and the Church have had a shared view of the essential purpose of marriage. It is primarily an institution that supports the bearing and raising of children in a committed and constant relationship. The traditional understanding of marriage has three basic elements: it is between a man and a woman, it is for life, and it is to the exclusion of all others.
	Article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights describes the family as
	“the natural and fundamental group unit of society”
	and defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. It states that the family is
	“entitled to protection by society and the State.”
	Those elements are designed not to exclude people or create inequality, but to promote the unique benefit of marriage in our society: it secures family environments and provides the essential qualities of safety and reliability for children.
	Worryingly, the Bill rarely mentions children or parenthood. It emphasises the decision to take part in a ceremony more than the commitment to a lifelong relationship or having children. It is as if those elements are of no consequence.
	The Bill proposes to change the definition and therefore the meaning of marriage in the interests of equality. The words “equality” and “fairness” have been used extensively by supporters of the Bill. I have concerns about the development of the Bill on those terms. The equality agenda has been narrowly limited to dogmatic principles of uniformity. Such language makes open debate and disagreement about the Bill look like prejudice.
	The Bill promotes the erroneous notion that “uniformity” is a good definition of “equality”. Men and women do not have to be the same in order to be equal. Having the same experience does not make people more equal. We should be promoting equality, not uniformity, and be able to celebrate difference.
	For a Bill to be driven by the word “equality” and to then promote inequality seems to demonstrate a spectacular failure. An example of that is the fact that a civil partnership is available only to same-sex couples. This is not a Bill that has equality at its heart. In honesty, it is a Bill that dilutes the meaning of marriage.
	Holding a traditional view of marriage should not be seen as discriminatory. Unfortunately, the Bill has promoted that notion. It has not created tolerance, but has highlighted division. The Government cannot guarantee protection for Churches or individuals with a traditional view because they cannot predict or control what happens in the courts. What has happened to Catholic adoption agencies is a good example of that.
	Moreover, the Bill no longer promotes exclusiveness. It does not consider adultery to be a violation of commitment and so it undermines the nature of marriage and the way in which marriage promotes predictable, long-term family environments for children. That is a worrying move for a Government to make. Are the supporters of the Bill really saying that marriage is good for society, while at the same time reducing the substance and value of marriage?
	The Bill has many pitfalls. Changing the definition of an institution that has served society well is hasty and destructive. I cannot support such a move. I urge the Minister and the House to read the ResPublica green paper on marriage and British civic life that was launched yesterday evening and to think again.

Roger Gale: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), with whose speech I concur.
	I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.
	When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.
	I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.
	A way forward has been suggested, but it has been ignored. I do not subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument. The argument is that if the Government are serious about this measure, they should withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well. That would be a way forward. This is not.

Chris Bryant: May I suggest very gently to the hon. Gentleman that what he has just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who are in civil partnerships, but to quite a few people on both sides of the House?

Roger Gale: The argument is not mine, but that of an eminent lawyer in this House. Its merit is that it would create what I think the hon. Gentleman wants, which is equality. It would create a level playing field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means the union between a man and a woman and nothing else.

Chris Bryant: indicated dissent.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman may seek to bat my argument away, but I promise him that in this House and outside it, there are very many people who share this view.
	To conclude, I urge Members on both sides of the House not to abstain. If they support this measure, they should vote for it. If they are against it, they should vote against it, as I shall myself.

Natascha Engel: A man called Mr Proctor came to my surgery two weeks ago. He had never been to see an MP before, but said that he had never felt so strongly about an issue before. He wanted to know where I stood on the issue of redefining marriage. I said that given that he was calling it “redefining marriage”, I took the opposite view from him. He said, “Well, you’ve lost my vote.” I said that I felt as strongly as he did about this issue and that if it meant that people would vote against me at the general election, so be it.
	Mr Proctor and I had a long discussion about the redefinition of marriage. I did not deny that it was a redefinition, because until now marriage has been possible only between a man and a woman. I explained that what I wanted to do was to widen access to an institution that has brought stability and happiness to many relationships.
	Mr Proctor was a probation officer. He had seen lots of family breakdowns and their terrible consequences. He believed that the traditional husband and wife set-up was the best for bringing up children. He blamed absent fathers for the riots in London in 2011. I could not see how that linked to gay couples enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples and bringing up children in a stable relationship. He believed deeply that a child—in an ideal world—needs both a mother and a father. I believe as deeply that a gay couple can bring up a child equally well.
	We agreed to differ, but then Mr Proctor said, “What I’m bothered by is that people like me are regarded not as having a different point of view, but as bigots and homophobes. I am neither a bigot nor a homophobe. I have strong views about this and they are traditional views, but why does that suddenly make me completely beyond the pale?” We talked about equality and equal treatment and how we were not forcing people into same-sex relationships. He and I discussed the idea of equality for a while. “Equality for whom?” he asked. He felt not just excluded from my idea of equality, but criminalised by it. He wanted to know what would happen to people such as himself—people with traditional views.
	I thought a long time about what Mr Proctor said—about the importance of not being zealots and bigots ourselves, but understanding the other point of view. We are, I hope, going to make a change that will make it legal for two men or two women to be married. Just as when we outlawed incitement to racial hatred we started a cultural shift in the way society thinks about race, so hopefully this legislation will do the same. But we want to take people with us, not leave them behind feeling that their views are neither heard nor understood. Living in a democracy means that the majority view generally prevails,
	but that makes it even more important to ensure that the minority view is considered and taken into account. I like and respect Mr Proctor, but I disagree with his point of view, and I look forward to voting for same-sex marriage this evening.

Nick Herbert: Marriage is one of the most important institutions in our society. It concerns many of us that it is in decline, yet while many move away from marriage, one group turns towards it. Gay couples are now asking to be admitted. Here we have a section of society who are saying that they want to declare commitment and that they value stability, in the sight of the public and perhaps of God. We defenders of marriage should be gratefully opening the doors, yet the reaction of some has been to slam them shut.
	It is said that gay people should accept civil partnerships—and no more—which confer most of the legal rights of a marriage. Thousands of people such as me have cause to be grateful for the courage of hon. Members who voted for that change. Entering a civil partnership was the most important thing I have done in my life. At that time, civil partnerships were opposed by the Churches, a significant proportion of the public and many hon. Members. Just eight years later, only a small minority of the public oppose civil partnerships and many hon. Members who voted against the change now say they support it. People choose marriage for a reason: they know that it means something special. Indeed, it is because marriage is different that many are opposing the change, so we cannot say that civil partnerships are the same or dismiss the debate as being about a name. How many married couples would like to be told that they were barred from matrimony and able only to take out a civil partnership?
	The Church of England and the Catholic Church object to gay marriage. I disagree with them, but their religious freedom is surely among the greatest prizes in our democracy. I would not vote for this Bill unless I believed that it protected religious freedom. No faith group should be compelled by law to conduct a gay marriage against its will, and none will be, but religious freedom cuts both ways. Why should the law prevent liberal Jews, Quakers or Unitarian Churches from conducting gay marriages, as they wish to? With the proper safeguards for faith groups and individuals to exercise their consciences and to disagree, I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds to oppose a measure that allows gay marriages for others. No one has to enter a gay marriage. No one’s Church has to conduct a gay marriage. We simply have to agree that someone else can enter a gay marriage.
	Are the marriages of millions of straight people about to be threatened because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join? What will they say? “Darling, our marriage is over: Sir Elton John has just got engaged to David Furnish”? I appreciate the sincerity with which many people oppose equal marriage and the serious points made. Ensuring that religious freedom is protected is a proper concern, but some of the objections do not bear scrutiny. We are told that because there will not be a legal definition of “consummation”, there is some terrible flaw in the Bill, but many loving heterosexual
	marriages exist without consummation. Are they invalid? For some, the objection is to homosexual conduct itself. Today that is a minority view—one thankfully in decline.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend says that that attitude is in decline, but does he agree that although achieving legal equality is critical, it is—and only ever will be—part of the battle for acceptance?

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
	I believe that many who do not share that view nevertheless have a principled concern that gay marriage would mean redefining the institution for everyone, yet Parliament has repeatedly done that. If marriage had not been redefined in 1836, there would be no civil marriages. If it had not been redefined in 1949, under-16-year-olds would still be able to get married. If it had not been redefined in 1969, we would not have today’s divorce laws. All those changes were opposed.

Andy Sawford: I would like to praise the right hon. Gentleman’s advocacy of the cause of equal marriage—and give him a moment longer to speak. I agree with him that the definition of marriage is, in fact, what means most to us as individuals. I define marriage as being about a loving, long-term relationship. That is something to be celebrated and open to all in our society.

Nick Herbert: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an institution that should now be open to all.
	When I was born, homosexual conduct was a crime. Not so long ago, it was possible to sack someone because they were gay. People did not dare to be open. Thank goodness so much has changed in my lifetime. That progress should be celebrated, but we should not believe that the journey is complete. I think of the gay children who are still bullied at school or who are fearful about whether their friends and families accept them. I think of sportsmen and women—vital role models—who still do not feel able to come out. The signal we send today about whether the law fully recognises the place of gay people in our society will really matter. Above all, I think of two people, faithful and loving, who simply want their commitment to be recognised, as it is for straight couples. That, in the end, is what this Bill is about.
	Millions will be watching us today—not just gay people, but those who want to live in a society where people are treated equally and accepted for who they are. They will hear our words and remember our votes. I hope that, once again, this House will do the right thing.

Ben Bradshaw: May I say what a privilege it is to follow that excellent speech.
	Given the time constraints, I will focus my comments on my perspective as a member of both the Anglican Church and the Ecclesiastical Committee of this and the other place. I entirely support the Government’s decision to make this a permissive law, allowing those religions and denominations that wish to celebrate the loving same-sex relationships of their members to do so. As the right hon. Member for Arundel and South
	Downs (Nick Herbert) said, it would have been completely perverse to say to Quakers, the United Reformed Church or progressive synagogues, which wish to value and support their gay and lesbian members fully, that they would not be allowed to do so.
	Indeed, there are many Anglicans and Roman Catholics who wish that their Churches were as open and welcoming as those that support the Bill entirely. In fact, all the opinion polls show that a majority not just of the public, but of Anglicans and Roman Catholics in this country support equal marriage. However, in their wisdom, the leaderships of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are not yet prepared to take such a step. That is their prerogative. It is perfectly possible to make the argument that, as a particular religion understands it, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. However the Churches’ credibility in arguing that would be a lot greater if they welcomed and celebrated civil partnerships. The fact that they do not do so leads me to conclude only that their objection to the Bill is not about the institution of marriage or even the word, but about a residual prejudice against same-sex relationships.
	The Church of England has claimed, and repeated in the briefing provided for today’s debate, that because of its established status and the need for state law and canon law to be compatible, it requires an extra safeguard in the Bill that specifically does not allow same-sex weddings in the Church of England and Church in Wales—the so-called quadruple lock. When, however, in the presence of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Members of this House and the other place asked the Bishop of Leicester, who speaks for the bishops in the other place, why the Church wanted that quadruple lock, he said
	“we didn’t want it, hadn’t asked for it, and hadn’t been consulted.”
	When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be grateful if she could clear up the confusion in Anglican circles on the issue of the quadruple lock. Were the Church of England to embrace same-sex marriage at some stage—as I and many in the Church hope it will—will the Minister confirm that there will be no need for more primary legislation or an amendment to primary legislation in this House, as has been stated?
	I am not a constitutional expert, but having been in this House for 15-odd years I am not aware of any precedent whereby an outside institution can unilaterally decide to change primary legislation passed in this House. I therefore question the Church of England’s claim that were it to change its mind in future, it could do so just like that—easy, the Synod could get on and vote for it and we would not have to do anything. My fear is that it would be another long and convoluted process and that we would have to amend primary legislation. Will the Minister check once again whether the quadruple lock is necessary in law, and whether the Church is being completely upfront with its members about the hurdles in front of it?
	I would also be grateful if the Minister would explain what would happen in the case of a Church of England priest who wanted to marry members of their congregation in another church—a Quakers meeting house, for example, or a United Reform Church. Would that priest be banned from doing so under the proposed law?

Tim Loughton: Four minutes are not enough to lay out an argument about this matter, so let me set out some ground rules. I very much agree with the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). If this Bill passes through Parliament and becomes law, it will not be the end of the world as we know it; a new Sodom and Gomorrah will not take hold of our island. Similarly, if it does not go through, it will not signal some resurgence of intolerance or inequality. No one will lose any rights to equal treatment and respect under the law and in the eyes of society.
	No doubt some of our constituents who urge us to vote against the Bill do so out of an intolerance of same-sex relationships per se, or even homophobia. Likewise, some of those who urge us not to vote against the Bill, with charges of bigotry, closed-mindedness and religious zealotry, are equally guilty of intolerance and bigotry. I am sure that the vast majority, if not all Members of this House, are not homophobic, and neither are the vast majority who support the Bill bigots. Let us therefore have this important debate on the basis of respecting each other’s position, and hope that that rubs off—for once—on some of our over-zealous constituents and lobby groups.
	Let us get away from the ridiculous mentality that too often pervades arguments on sensitive issues: that if someone is for some reason not in favour of a specific issue, they are against the whole cause—that if someone is not in favour of gay marriage, they must be homophobic or against equality. What nonsense! I feel immensely special and proud to be British, but that does not make me racist or guilty of regarding citizens of other races as inferior.
	I supported the Civil Registration Act 2004. It should have been introduced earlier and it gave same-sex couples the same rights under the law and the tax system that I enjoy as a married person. I do not regard a couple’s civil partnership as inferior or unequal to my marriage; it is simply different. That Act was an end in itself; it achieved equality. I reread the debate and found no accusations against supporters of civil partnerships at the time that we were bigoted or homophobic because we were not legalising gay marriage and going all the way. What has happened between 2004 and now to make this Bill so urgent and pressing that it takes priority despite no manifesto commitment by any party, no coalition agreement, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no general campaign saying that we desperately need it?

Steve Brine: As always, I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. In so much as the Bill is an answer to any question, it may be an attempt to meet the perception that civil partnerships are somehow not enough. Given his argument, does my hon. Friend agree that the progressive outcome from what has so far been a hugely divisive process would be to meet that perception without redefining marriage and mortally offending so many of my—and I am sure his—constituents?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which returns to a point raised earlier. This should be about equal respect. The real problem is not a lack of equality under the law but people’s perceptions of a
	lack of equality for those with different sexual persuasions. We must redouble our efforts to root out that lack of equality, but changing the nature and the word of a ceremony will not do it and we completely mislead ourselves if we think that it will.
	Why are we here? Why has the Bill received such priority despite not having been in manifestos when there are other bigger priorities and inequalities? Why is it that women cannot become Members of the upper House because they cannot inherit a title? That is a big inequality. Why are we not putting through a law on the bigger inequality of forced marriage? Why has the Bill taken priority? The answer is because this is bad politics.
	There are many reasons for opposing this Bill, only some of which are religious. Many of those reasons are secular. Atheists, I think, have a duty to protect the rights of those who, through many different deeply held faiths, will take a different view of this form of marriage. Many of the reasons not to support the Bill are based on poor, rushed drafting with a whole raft of “What nexts?” How much more will marriage be redefined? Many of those fears may turn out to be hollow, but on such a fundamental rewriting of an historical truth that has held that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, we are entitled to more security than quickly cobbled together, fangled quadruple locks that lawyers are already queuing up to unpick. Who are we, this Government of this country, to redefine the term marriage that has meant one man and one woman across cultures, ages, geographical boundaries since before state and religion themselves?
	I do not claim that my church marriage is superior to another Member’s civil partnership. It is not; it is equal in the eyes of the law and society, just different. Let us get away from the basis that we need things to be the same to be equal. It is not the same thing.

Stephen Doughty: I rise strongly to support this Bill as a practising Christian who now worships in the Church in Wales. I also rise, as I did the other day, with the greatest courtesy and respect for the sincerely and deeply held views and beliefs of fellow Christians and others who disagree with me on this matter. Although I disagree with the legal, political and theological arguments that have been made in opposition to the Bill, and cannot speak in detail today about why I believe such arguments are in error, at least we live in a society where such views can be courteously put forward and courteously opposed.
	I am grateful for and proud of the steps that the previous Labour Government took towards establishing equality, and I also pay tribute to this Government for bravely introducing this Bill. I thank the Equalities Minister and her colleagues for the consideration that they and their officials have given to the Church in Wales, which as a disestablished Church with a legal duty to marry is uniquely placed.
	Late last week I spoke to those in the office of the Archbishop of Wales and it was clear that they believed the Bill as currently drafted is much improved. In response, the Church has stated:
	“The duty of Church in Wales ministers to marry will not be extended to same-sex couples. However…there is provision in the Bill for the law to be altered without the need for further primary legislation by Parliament.”
	Although it is of great personal regret to me that my Church currently does not permit same-sex marriage, what is exemplified in that quote—as, indeed, it is in the rest of the Bill—is that it will not be forced to do so under the proposed legislation. There could not be a more respectful and appropriate compromise. Let me be clear: I will argue and pray for my Church to change its mind from within, but that is fundamentally a theological decision for my Church. The Bill is about not compulsion but permission—permission for the state to offer the legal institution of marriage to all those who request it, and permission for religious organisations to do the same should they so wish.
	I spoke in detail last week about why I believe the Bill will provide ample protections for those whose earnestly and sincerely held beliefs will prevent them from wanting to take part in, conduct or otherwise engage in ceremonies of same-sex marriage, in addition to the extensive protections that people of religious belief are afforded by the Equality Act 2010. Hon. Members who remain concerned should test and secure assurances on that, but I believe there is no cause for fear.
	All struggles for equality in human history are hugely different, but they have common characteristics. I do not wish to be crude or crass in making comparisons between debates on slavery, votes for women and other issues, nor do I imply that any Member of the House would have voted for slavery or against votes for women, but there are important historical parallels in the development of Christian and non-Christian views on those issues. With the greatest respect, I believe future generations will look back in deep confusion at some of the views expressed in this debate.
	It is rare that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will hear me quote an American southern Baptist minister. Pat Robertson is no proponent of same-sex marriage—indeed, he is a staunch opponent—but when questioned recently on why an America built with direct intent on Christian values had justified slavery, based in part on interpretations of biblical verse, and yet moved on to abolish it, he said:
	“We have moved in our conception of the value of human beings until we realized slavery was terribly wrong.”
	Slavery and same-sex marriage are different issues, but I hope the House today moves on in its conception, towards people of all sexualities. I also hope we move towards the state—and, I hope in time, more faiths—being able to open up the offer of the commitment signified by marriage.
	One of my constituents wrote to me simply to ask:
	“Please vote in favour of this Bill…so that my partner and I can get married.”
	When I decide that I want to make a lifelong commitment of love to a partner, whether that be to a woman or to a man, I hope to get married in the traditions of my faith and in the presence of the God in whom I believe. I respectfully ask hon. Members this question: why should we, in all good conscience, deny my constituent, fellow hon. Members or any other person in this country a remarkable and worthy institution that is currently afforded to the majority but denied to a minority? We will not diminish marriage by allowing same-sex couples to marry, but strengthen it. I urge the House to vote in favour of the Bill.

Edward Leigh: We should indeed treat one another with tolerance and treat everybody’s sexuality with understanding, but the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether English law should declare for the first time that two people of the same sex can marry.
	Parliament is sovereign—we can vote for what we want—but we must be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, in seeking to make the point that Parliament is sovereign, said that Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman or a woman a man. Of course, in 2004, we did exactly that with the Gender Recognition Act. We are now proposing to make equally stark changes to the essence of marriage. During the civil partnership debates, I was given solemn assurances on the Floor of the House, including by some sitting on the Opposition Benches now, that the Civil Partnership Act would not lead to full same-sex marriage.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Edward Leigh: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who gave those assurances to me.

Chris Bryant: Assurances from me do not necessarily determine what happens in Parliament in future. Several hon. Members have raised what I said in that debate. At that time, I believed that civil partnership was the be-all and end-all of the story. I have since entered a civil partnership and believe that the world has moved on. Many Conservative Members who voted against civil partnerships know that Britain’s mind has changed and want to reflect that in a change of the law.

Edward Leigh: The worry some of us have is that the world, in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, could move on again, and that many of the assurances we are being given may not count for very much.

Bernard Jenkin: In respect of Parliament being sovereign, it matters not what anybody says in any debate, because Parliament can trump it with a new law. On the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—it is not the first time he has been wrong—I voted for civil partnerships expecting that to be the end of the story. We are now confronted with thousands of people in our country who are in, or want to enter, civil partnerships but would like to be married. That is what the Bill is about.

Edward Leigh: That is precisely what I want to talk about —the nature of marriage.
	The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church beautifully describes the institution. Anybody of any faith or no faith who supports traditional marriage could echo these words. The catechism says that marriage is a “covenant” in which
	“a man and a woman establish themselves in a partnership”
	for “the whole of life”, and that marriage is
	“by its nature ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”
	What does that tell us? I and many millions of our fellow citizens believe that marriage is, by its nature, a heterosexual union. We believe it is the bringing together of one man and one woman. It is not just a romantic attachment, which can exist between any two people, and nor is it just a sexual relationship. The act of marriage, by its very definition, requires two people of opposite sexes. If we take that basic requirement away, what we are left with is not marriage.
	The Minister claims that marriage has always evolved. The Bill is not evolution, but revolution. It is true that I am blessed with six children. I realise that not every married couple is able to have the gift of children, and that some married couples may not want it, yet that does not change the fact that the concept of marriage has always been bestowed with a vision of procreation.
	Every marriage has procreating potential in that marriage brings together biologically the two elements needed to generate a child. The very reason that marriage is underpinned with laws and customs is that children often result from it. They need protecting from the tendency of adults to want to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. Marriage exists to keep the parents exclusively committed to each other, because, on average, that is the best and most stable environment for children. If marriage were solely about the relationship between two people, we would not bother to enshrine it in law, and nor would every culture, society and religion for thousands of years have invested it with so much importance. Marriage is about protecting the future.
	Marriage is not about “me, me, me”, nor about legally validating “my rights” and “my relationships”; it is about a secure environment for creating and raising children, based on lifelong commitment and exclusivity. Marriage is also profoundly pro-woman—it is generally men who have the greater propensity to want to wander off into other relationships, when, in general, women are left holding the baby.
	We must get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of equality. I am a Conservative. I believe we should be concerned with equality, but not at the expense of every other consideration—not at the expense of tradition. We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage. Otherwise, what is a Conservative party for? Indeed, we are alienating people who have voted for us all their lives, and leaving them with no one to vote for.
	I should add a comment from a lady who e-mailed me. She said:
	“As a gay woman in a 24 year relationship, I commend you for your stand against the nonsense now being perpetrated by”
	the Government.
	“We have civil partnerships to give legal protections, I contracted one in 2006. I have been a Conservative voter for 50 years…and see this latest piece of nonsense as a final kick in the teeth for loyal Conservatives.”
	I will vote tonight to proclaim my support for the future of our children and for the essence of traditional marriage.

Steve Reed: All hon. Members have had many letters from constituents about the Bill. One I received came from a couple who first met in 1978 and have been in a loving and committed relationship ever since. They are accepted, welcomed and supported as a couple by their friends and family, and they have waited 35 years for the House finally to catch up with what they and their friends already knew: that their same-sex relationship is every bit as valid, important and equal as their straight friends’ relationships.
	Over the period of that couple’s relationship, there have been huge changes in how society at large views them and other same-sex couples. I marched in protest 25 years ago when the House passed section 28—legislation that offensively characterised same-sex relationships as “pretend”. The fact that we have a quite different Bill before us today is testament to the power of politics to change minds and build a better society.
	I condemned the Conservative Prime Minister who promoted section 28 all those years ago, but today I pay tribute to the Conservative Prime Minister who has provided leadership on this issue. The Bill is also a tribute to the legacy of campaigners such as Michael Cashman and Chris Smith, to numerous socially progressive campaigners in the community, to LGBT people who have suffered hatred and discrimination in their lives because of who they were born, and to the same-sex couples and individuals whose determination to secure equality was driven by the knowledge that the love they experienced in their relationships was no less than anyone else’s love.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against discrimination. Does he agree that one group still discriminated against is the trans community, and that one important outcome of the proposals is that they will make it possible for individuals to change their legal gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without being forced first to end their marriage? That will be a great relief to many trans people in the community.

Steve Reed: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point that I am happy to agree with. I hope that changes will be made in due course to reflect that.
	The argument that extending marriage to same-sex couples in any way diminishes anyone else’s relationship is spurious. One person’s happiness does not diminish another person’s; rather, it adds to the total sum of human happiness, and surely that is to be welcomed. The measure strengthens rather than weakens marriage by extending it to more people. To those who do not like gay marriage, I say, “Don’t marry someone gay, but please don’t deny that right to loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”
	Equality is indivisible. One cannot be partially equal: either one is equal or one is not. The prize of the Bill will be to build a lasting political consensus in favour of equality. Today, the House must put itself on the right side of public opinion and on the right side of history by recognising in law at last that every person has the fundamental human right to love and to marry whomever they choose.

Margot James: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I feel a certain distress about how the debate has been managed over the past six months and the pressure that has been put on so many of my colleagues by pressure groups and Churches who should have known better than to deploy such tactics. I feel that I have been living with a false sense of security after the legislative changes of the past decade. I am indebted to the Prime Minister not only for the Bill, but for the changes he has brought about within my party, which have led to my own election and that of many others and changed the face of the parliamentary party. As a result of the debate over the past six months, we may have gone two steps forward, but I fear we have also gone one step back. The modernisation of the Conservative party is not yet complete.

Madeleine Moon: Has the hon. Lady, like me, been particularly angered and frustrated by the tactics of the campaign director of Coalition for Marriage, who has sent out e-mails urging people to write to their MPs saying:
	“You will be remembered if you vote for this Bill. You will be held to account for it. We will tell your friends and family and we will not vote for you.”?
	This is a free vote. Members should be voting with their conscience, as a free vote requires, not on the basis of threats to electoral prospects.

Margot James: The hon. Lady makes the point far better than I could have done. The Coalition for Marriage and some Churches have deliberately and consistently misinterpreted the Government’s intentions by pretending that we were forcing Churches to marry same-sex couples. That was never the intention of the Government, and I and other colleagues would never have supported the Bill had it been so.
	Belatedly, only this weekend, the Church of England has finally admitted that it is not realistic or likely that Churches will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. It is so easy to say that now, when practically every person I meet who does not follow political deliberations in great detail has said to me about the Bill, “Oh, it’s about weddings in churches for gay people, isn’t it?” That is the misapprehension that many of my constituents who are opposed to the Bill have laboured under, including members of my own constituency association. I would like to put on record my appreciation of those individuals who have treated me with courtesy and respect such that I can, in conscience, support the Bill this evening without fear or favour. Many of them, however, believe that we are legislating for gay weddings in church. We are not. I am satisfied by the advice of the Attorney-General that that is an infinitesimal possibility. We have heard about how nobody can legislate against a challenge in the courts, but case law in the European Court of Human Rights makes it infinitesimally unlikely that any such challenge would succeed.

Emma Reynolds: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that many European countries that are members of the Council of Europe have introduced same-sex
	marriage while at the same time protecting religious freedom, and that it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to do the same in our country?

Margot James: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In fact, there was a case from Austria in 2010, Schalk and Kopf, in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there was no obligation on any country, on any secular Government, to guarantee the rights of gay people to marry each other.
	It has been argued that equality is not all that matters—that we are different and we should celebrate differences. I agree: we should celebrate cultural and other differences. However, having been different for most of my life, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that being treated equally is very welcome indeed. We still have some way to go, not just for gay people but in other areas too. My party should never flinch from the requirement to continue this progression; otherwise we may end up like the Republican party, which lost an election last year that it could have won were it not for its socially conservative agenda.
	One last point that has not been raised is that gay people have always been allowed to marry—as long as they choose someone of the opposite sex. This has been the case in politics and in Hollywood for reasons that are well known. Many gay people today appreciate civil partnerships, but want more—they want the status of marriage. I am thinking particularly of younger gay people, who did not have to grow up in the environment that some of us had to grow up in. I support their right to declare their love in a state of marriage. I can assure hon. Members that this will not undermine tradition.

Jim Shannon: It is a great privilege to stand here today in the greatest seat of democracy in the world. I am honoured to be a part of this debate on the redefinition of marriage. The single biggest mailbag I have had in all my days as an MP, MLA and councillor has been on this issue. I listen to my constituents—not just one or two, but all of them. In this case, I listened to the 1,700 of my constituents who have contacted me to tell me clearly that they are opposed to any change and to the redefinition of marriage.
	Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister walked into the House to great applause in relation to Europe. I was pleased as punch for him and what he is going to do with the referendum. He said he would be giving a commitment with all his heart and soul, and I am of the same mindset on this issue: with all my heart and with all my soul, I oppose the redefinition of marriage in this House and elsewhere.
	More than 99% of my constituents who have contacted me have said that they do not want this. I have listened carefully to the argument that this is a matter of equal rights. That is not how I or my constituents view this matter. The introduction of civil partnerships, which enshrined legal and financial rights, ensured that people in civil partnerships had the same protection as a married couple. There is parity of rights here, so this is not a matter of equality of rights.
	With great respect to the House and to everyone here, the sheer volume of those who are against this change cannot be ignored. Marriage is the union of one man
	and one woman. That has not changed for thousands of years. My constituents tell me they see no reason to redefine marriage, and I agree. We do not need to push through a measure which so many people believe will affect their ability to live out their Christian faith, but which does not give rights or correct wrongdoing. There is much potential for harm. This not scaremongering; these are grounded and justified fears.
	The proposed change in the law has the potential to bring inequality to anyone who disagrees with the redefinition of marriage, or who does not teach it, or who feels unable to promote or assist its promotion in their work. It will leave Churches vulnerable. On behalf of the Elim Church, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Brethren of the Church of Ireland or the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, the Methodists, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Orthodox Jews—all those faiths who do not want a redefinition of marriage—I ask the Government not to ignore them, but to listen to what they and a few of us here are saying.

Anne Main: Does the hon. Gentleman share my puzzlement that this proposal was in nobody’s manifesto? Indeed, our own Prime Minister, only three days before the general election, said he would not be introducing it. None of us stood on a mandate to introduce this Bill.

Jim Shannon: I understand exactly how the hon. Lady feels. I would feel the same if I were a Tory.
	The quadruple lock the Minister referred to makes worrying reading. There is no protection for public sector chaplains in the armed forces; NHS and university staff will be denied, for fear of losing their jobs, the freedom to express the opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. Some 40,000 teachers have expressed the valid fear, backed up by legal opinion, that they will not be able to opt out of endorsing same-sex marriage and allow someone else to teach that aspect of the curriculum. There is something horribly wrong about a teacher losing their job for seeking to bow out gracefully of teaching that section by allowing someone else to step in. It is also wrong that parents have no protection enabling them to remove their children from classes in which they will be taught something that is expressly against their beliefs. When did we become a country that enforces ideals on people to the detriment of their personal faith? I do not believe that we are such a country, and I urge everyone today to ensure that we do not become it.
	What about council registrars who feel unable to follow the new definition because it is contrary to their faith? The Minister has claimed that the quadruple lock will ensure that Europe cannot change things. She and everyone else in this House knows that Europe decisions have been made that overturned legislation in this country. I have five examples, but I will give only one, because time is against me: Islington council sacked registrar Lillian Ladele for requesting an accommodation of her conscientious objection to same-sex civil partnership, and the European Court confirmed that a public authority could force employees to act against their beliefs on marriage and sack any who resist. That demonstrates
	that a quadruple lock and any other kind of lock will fall down when it comes to the European Court. Is there any other reason why the Minister believes that Europe will support us?
	In December 2011, the Prime Minister stated that the UK is
	“a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so”.
	Today, I urge the Government to put that statement into practice and show that we are not ashamed to live by the Christian principles of loving God, loving our neighbour and living by the word of God. Do not take away people’s right to do that and say it is for equality. It is not. Parity of rights is already secure. Instead, let people live their faith without fear of persecution, aided by this Government. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the tone of the debate so far, including from the Minister for Women and Equalities and the shadow Home Secretary, for the passion from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for the call for tolerance from friends such as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I share with someone whom I hope I may call my friend, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), whom I welcome here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) the scars of past battles fighting against section 28, for example. It was not easy in the face of huge prejudice.
	I come to this debate as the person I am, with the complexities I have as an evangelical Protestant by faith and a Liberal since my teens. So these are not easy issues for me, and they are not easy for many people here. I hope that we all understand the difficulty that colleagues and our constituents have in understanding the other side of the argument. Two of the strongest arguments made against the Bill are that none of us made an election manifesto promise to legislate for this and that this is a redefinition of marriage, the last being the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
	On the first point, it is true that it was not an election commitment, so I ask the Minister, the Government and Parliament to proceed slowly and carefully and to seek maximum consensus. Heavy programming and tight timetables will be the enemy of good legislation, and I hope that the Government will be sensitive to that.

Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be voting against the timetable and carry-over motions this evening?

Simon Hughes: I will be voting against the timetable motion for just that reason, but I shall support the Bill. Edmund in “King Lear” said, “Stand up for bastards”. We need to stand up for gay people and their civil rights, but we also need to seek maximum consensus. A restrictive programme motion, therefore, would not be the right way forward.

Matthew Offord: I am pleased to hear about the right hon. Gentleman’s conversion. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to Peter Tatchell for the by-election in which he first entered the House?

Simon Hughes: I have apologised to him both publicly and privately. I was on a platform with him the other day, and he was very generous to me and supported me. We have worked together on many occasions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
	Other countries do these things much more easily than we do. In other countries, couples have a civil ceremony and then a faith ceremony. It would have been much better to start in that way, but it is too late to do that now, not least given the position of the established Church. I hope, therefore, that we will give the Bill a Second Reading today, but then work on the areas that, in my view, are not yet in a fit state to be enacted.
	The Bill ought to be amended to make it clear that the principal purpose is to provide for equal civil marriage for gay and straight couples and for others to opt in if the Churches and other denominations so wish, but that is not how the Bill is drafted. The Bill ought to make it clearer that we are not seeking to redefine traditional marriage as previously understood in custom and law. That would be helpful to Church communities and others. I have talked to many in churches and elsewhere and I believe that there is a constructive will to improve the Bill, even among people who might not in the end support it. I imagine that a majority will vote to give the Bill a Second Reading, but we must disabuse people of the notion that it will place a prohibition on how people may speak and preach about these things and on what happens in schools. I am sure, however, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, will address that issue intensely and will be able to give guarantees to people who fear that the Bill will affect their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of belief.
	I hope that we will address two other things. I supported civil partnerships. I think the Church was wrong to oppose them at the time, and I hope that it and other faith groups now understand that they would do themselves a service if they allowed services of blessing for people in civil partnerships. It would not be good, however, to provide for an easy transfer from civil partnership to civil marriage, which is what the Bill proposes. If we are to have civil marriage, there ought to be an obligation on everybody to have the ceremony of civil marriage, so that the full import is understood. I also do not understood why the Government are not making civil partnerships available for conventional male-female relationships as well as for gay people.
	I hope that there will be changes. In an intervention, I asked the Minister to consider positively, both in Committee and before Report, constructive suggestions for change. Given the complexity of the Bill, we need tolerance and respect. On Saturday night, I watched the new film, “Lincoln”. Of course, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, there are no exact parallels between the battle over slavery and this, but there is a lesson: people then took different sides of an intense argument, even though they came from the same faith or other backgrounds, but things move on and we have to learn that understanding each
	other’s positions and seeking the maximum consensus is the best way to proceed. I hope that is how we will continue.

Sandra Osborne: I, too, welcome the tenor of this debate, as Members clearly have different opinions about same-sex marriage, and the nuances of the various views held have been expressed well.
	As someone who believes firmly in equality and human rights, I strongly defend people’s rights to express their views freely within the law, regardless of how repugnant I might find them or how strongly I might disagree with them. However, I would remind opponents of same-sex marriage of the much-quoted words of the late American politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
	“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”
	Much of what we hear from the opponents of same-sex marriage is opinion masquerading as fact, so that they can then take the next logical step of insisting that their position should be imposed on everyone else.
	Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would testify to the huge postbags—or large number of e-mails, to be more exact—we have all received on this subject from people on both sides of the argument. I particularly want to challenge two assertions that opponents like to pose as facts: that same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage; and that this is not about equality.
	The definition of marriage has been changed by the state over time, so it is not correct to suggest that the concept of “marriage” has not changed. In fact, legislation around marriage has rightly changed over the years to keep up with public attitudes, from the beginning of real state involvement in marriage in the 1750s to the introduction of non-religious civil marriages in the 1830s, and from allowing married women to own property in the 1880s to outlawing rape within marriage in the 1990s.
	The remarriage of divorcees is now allowed, and since the passing of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 it is now possible for a trans person to marry in their affirmed gender. On the other hand, religious marriage will continue to be a matter for religious organisations, not the state, to define—or redefine, for that matter. So this is about not redefining marriage, but extending it to a category of people who are already, de facto, eligible to enter into marriage as a result of the introduction and broad acceptance of civil partnerships. Surveys have shown that 80% of adults under the age of 50 in the UK now support same-sex marriage legislation, including three in five people who describe themselves as having a religious faith.
	On equality, much progress has been made in fighting discrimination in the last few years. I am proud of the fact that Labour was in the driving seat for much of that, and I know from the current backlash against the Equality Act that progress is fragile. We need to keep up the momentum and same-sex marriage is an important next step in making progress.
	Opponents of same-sex marriage have become adept at adopting the language and arguments of the equality agenda to justify diversity under the law in respect of allowing civil partnerships for homosexual couples and
	marriage for heterosexual couples. However, no matter how they try to dress it up, such a distinction is discriminatory. While the fact of discrimination provides a powerful case for this change, the growing public support I referred to earlier gives the best possible context for delivering it.
	I do not share the view of some that marriage is so vital and important that we should support this move for that reason alone—

Nigel Evans: Order. Time is up. I call Craig Whittaker.

Craig Whittaker: Throughout all the debates and controversies surrounding the same-sex marriage proposals, recognition of the purpose and values of marriage has been assumed rather than discussed. No real debate has taken place on the nature of marriage itself. Every e-mail and letter I have received in support of this Bill has mentioned the word “equal”. It is interesting to note that the Government have dropped that word from the title of the Bill. That is probably because it does not promote equality.
	A Bill that keeps the traditional meaning of marriage for some sections of society, saying that marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children, then gives others in society a different meaning of marriage, saying that marriage of same-sex couples is lawful, is not equal. The Bill also does not change the meaning of adultery: if a person in a same-sex marriage has an affair with someone from the opposite sex, that is deemed as adultery; but if they have an affair with someone of the same sex, it is not classed as adultery and is therefore not grounds for divorce. How is that equal?
	A Bill that takes away the meaning of the purpose of marriage, whose intention is traditionally child-centred, and tailors it to become a partnership model changes the basic building block of society and makes it adult-centred. How is that equal for children? Why does this Bill not offer civil partnerships for heterosexual couples as well as for same-sex couples, or civil marriage for same-sex couples, too?
	Marriage is clearly both a foundational and a progressive institution; it is both traditional and radical. It secures well-being and manifest advantage for children born under its auspices, and stability for men and for women. However, traditional marriage is under threat, and has been for many years. The steady erosion of marriage over the last few decades is a grave social and economic ill. Why, then, does the state want to undermine it even further? With about 50% of children in our society being born out of wedlock, the state should be looking at ways to strengthen the institution of marriage for the sake of children, rather than eroding the true purpose of marriage even further. There is a plethora of evidence to suggest that the best platform to address poverty, acceptance, socialisation and a place in society for children is parental sacrifice and the love of the children of their union—the traditional family unit, sealed by traditional marriage.
	Those who advocate the extension of marriage to same-sex couples have been very strong on the value of equality, but at the same time almost silent on the specific nature of the concept of marriage they want equal access to. Rather than erode the traditional meaning of marriage for the majority, there is a simple solution to address the problems arising from this Bill, which, as it currently stands, is incredibly divisive, rather than inclusive. The Government should take a serious look at opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples and simply change the name to something like “state marriage”. In that way, those who want marriage so that they can be called married, get their way and those who want to maintain traditional marriage for its true intended purpose can keep it. In that way, those who do not want a traditional option of marriage can have marriage under a civil partnership, or state marriage, where they currently cannot and those who believe the Churches should decide on who they want to marry can allow them to do so. Let the Churches decide, not the state, and let them do so without fearing reprisals.
	In the meantime, I will not support this Bill, and I urge any of my colleagues who are undecided or wavering to do the same.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a huge privilege to be called to speak in this historic debate.
	When I was a first-time candidate in the mid-1990s, I confess that I was concerned about plans at that time for lesbians and gay couples to be able to adopt. That was not because I believed that their parenting would be in any way inferior to that of straight couples—I did not, and do not, believe that. It was because I feared that the social climate at that time might have meant that many of the children would be subjected to serious bullying. Happily, today we live in a very different world. Some eight years have passed since the introduction of civil partnerships, and about two years have passed since the bar on religious ceremonies was removed. I believe it is time that we in this House have the courage to vote for equal marriage.
	Let me explain my main reason for wanting to speak in this debate. As a straight woman of the Christian faith, I cannot believe it is right that I could be married in a church—and also that people of no faith whatever could be married in a church—yet believers who are lesbian and gay are shunned by the civil laws of the land on this issue, and even denominations that freely wish to marry them are barred from performing one of the most fundamental sacramental and pastoral duties. Do Members honestly believe that we should say to a Quaker couple whose meeting house wishes to perform a religious ceremony that they should be unable to have that, or that we should say the same to reformed or liberal Jews or to Unitarians? What about the United Reformed Church, which brought in religious ceremonies for civil partnerships last year? That Church was created from non-conformist traditions whose adherents were once barred from standing for office in this place and barred from our universities, and whose burial rites were not permitted in our parish churchyards. Do Members seriously believe that, in the 21st century, we should be denying religious freedom to those faith groups again?
	There has been talk in the debate today of civil marriage and state marriage, and of how they should somehow be different from religious marriage. With the greatest respect, we are not talking about the ownership of the railways here. This is about something that many religious denominations wish to opt into. That is why the Bill specifically offers an opt-in. As we have heard, Catholic Spain has had equal marriage since 2005 without any challenges from the European Court of Human Rights. There have been more than 22,000 civil marriages in Spain—a country in which General Franco ruled supreme 50 years ago.
	Churches the length and breadth of our land have not been challenged for re-marrying divorcees, for allowing members from outside their own fellowships to wed, or for placing any restrictions on who may receive the sacraments of communion or baptism. And let us not forget the case of Nadia Eweida, whose right to wear a cross at work was so shamefully denied by British Airways. She was supported by the ECHR in a judgment that quite rightly declared that manifesting religion was a fundamental right. I believe that this legislation is fundamentally about human equality and religious liberty. For heaven’s sake, let us support it today.

Graham Brady: The level of interest in this subject, and the respect that has been shown by Members on both sides of the debate, are strong arguments for more free votes to take place in the House. I am delighted to see the manner in which the debate is being conducted today.
	We have heard that this matter is not the highest priority facing the country at the moment, and I agree with that. We have also heard that the Government have no mandate for the legislation in their manifesto; that is also true. Although it is clear from many opinion polls that public opinion seems to support the measure, there is no settled public view on the matter. This is a new debate; it has not been conducted for long, either in the House or outside it. I believe that more time is needed for people to consider the ramifications of the proposal.
	Too often, the argument on this issue outside the House has been polarised. Those in favour of same-sex marriage have sought to suggest that all those who oppose it are dinosaurs, while those who oppose it have said that its supporters would bring about the end of civilisation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I do not think that either of those propositions is true. There has been a great deal of common ground in the contributions from both sides of the debate today, but the core question with which most Members are tussling is the balance between the rights of those who wish to enter a same-sex marriage and the threat to religious freedoms for others.
	In June 1998, I voted in the House in favour of an equal age of consent. Only 13 other Conservative Members did so at the time. In 2003, I supported the introduction of civil partnerships, although I wanted the proposals to be wider and to include other cohabiting couples. Both those changes righted an injustice. This measure does not. It will not save anyone from prosecution for being what they are, and it will not prevent any unfair inheritance taxes from being applied.
	I will vote against the measure tonight, not because I think that the world will end if it is passed but because I have serious misgivings about it. In spite of the Minister’s commendable efforts—which, as has been mentioned, have been recognised by the Church of England—it will be impossible to guarantee that religious freedom will not be compromised. Many Members have already raised instances in which people’s employment or their right of free expression could be compromised if the European Court were to rule in a certain way, or indeed if our own domestic laws were to be employed against them.
	At the beginning of the debate, the question that was put to my right hon. Friend the Minister by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was met by no guarantee. She could not give him a guarantee that people’s religious freedom would be protected, because it is impossible to guarantee that. The matter could be taken to the European Court. Indeed, if we pass this measure, it will be taken to the Court.

Stephen Timms: I want to set out misgivings about the Bill. I am not going to vote against it, because I do not object to its being scrutinised in Committee, but I expect to vote against it on Third Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has spoken of the Church of England marriage service in some of his interventions on this topic. He has been right to do so, not on the basis that if the Church of England says something it must be true, but on the basis that the Church of England was the custodian of marriage in Britain for hundreds of years. For many people, it still is.

Thomas Docherty: May I point out that the Church of England has never been the custodian of marriage in Scotland?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	The 1662 version of the Church of England service, which has been in use for the past 350 years, sets out three reasons for marriage. The first is that it was
	“ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord”.
	The central problem with the Bill is that it introduces a definition of marriage that includes the second and third reasons but drops that first one. The result is something that is a good deal weaker than the original.

Lyn Brown: My right hon. Friend was at my wedding. I was not young when I got married, and unless I had been blessed like Elizabeth, it was highly unlikely that I was going to be able to procreate after all that time. Is he telling me that my marriage is less valid than anybody else’s?

Stephen Timms: No, I am certainly not. I was delighted to attend my hon. Friend’s wedding. The reason that I have just cited was applicable 351 years ago as well, but the Church of England service still applies.
	Children are at the heart of marriage but they are barely mentioned in the Bill. It aims to open up the benefits of marriage to people who are excluded from it
	at the moment, but it does so at the price of taking away a significant part of the meaning of marriage. Children are the reason that marriage has always been so important. If it was purely about a loving relationship between two people, as the Minister suggested earlier, it would have been much less important than it has actually been. Does that matter? Yes, it does, because it is right for society to recognise—as marriage does—the value to all of us of the contribution of those who bring children into the world and bring them up. That is the ideal that the current definition of marriage reflects, and it would be a mistake to lose the value that that definition places on the creation and bringing up of children. In the end, it will be children who will lose out if we do that.

Madeleine Moon: I am following my right hon. Friend’s argument about the importance of marriage for children. Is he suggesting that children should be adopted only by couples who are married, or that children with same-sex parents have a lesser right to have loving parents who are married?

Stephen Timms: I am not saying either of those things; I am simply making the point that it remains the ideal for the two parents who together created a child to bring up that child.
	Legal equality was delivered, quite rightly, by the introduction of civil partnerships, and if there are weaknesses in those arrangements, they should be put right. In particular, I see no problem with same-sex unions being celebrated in places of worship where congregations want to do so. A same-sex couple can have the same wish to affirm and to have affirmed a lifelong exclusive commitment as a man and a woman getting married, and we should value that and be willing to recognise and celebrate it. This Bill, however, affirms not that same-sex unions are equal with marriages, but rather that they are the same as marriages, when in reality they are not: they are different. I think we will be poorer if we adopt a watered-down definition of marriage based on two aims from the Church of England’s list instead of all three.

Cheryl Gillan: It is quite obvious from the tenor of this debate that this proposed legislation presents many problems for people both in this Chamber and beyond. Constituents and colleagues who are neither prejudiced nor homophobic genuinely believe that it is impossible to change the meaning of a marriage, which is what this Bill seeks to do.
	People with deep religious beliefs see this attempt to change the law as an undermining of a fundamental institution. Now, by its very introduction, this Bill has undermined the perception of civil partnerships, which were so widely celebrated only a few years ago. I understand many younger people are not bothered by this Bill, but many older people do not understand this Government’s imperative to change the law in this area.
	There may be a case for examining any legal disadvantages to same-sex couples and for strengthening any weaknesses in the civil partnerships legislation. This legislation, however, was not in our manifesto;
	it was not in the coalition agreement; and it was not in the Queen’s Speech. It should not have been introduced before a much fuller discussion had taken place—particularly, I believe, within my own party.

Anne Main: Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement at why the Prime Minister referred specifically to not introducing such a Bill only just before an election?

Cheryl Gillan: There have been many conflicting messages coming out of the Government, and my hon. Friend has just alluded to one of them.
	At a meeting I attended in the House of Lords only a few weeks ago with the then putative Archbishop of Canterbury, one bishop told us that the Church had not been fully consulted. I believe that the Church should have been fully involved in all discussions on this matter. If the Government had sought to redefine civil partnerships or if they could really have ensured that the religious freedoms that they are promising would stick, more people would have been persuaded to support the legislation.

Angie Bray: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us may find ourselves having to abstain, even though that is not exactly ideal, because that is the only way of making the point that although what we are debating has merit, a conclusive case has not been made? I would like to make it clear that, although I am not implacably opposed to change, I need to be convinced that it is necessary and has been properly thought through. When I hear of Government lawyers who are not even able to deal with the basic detail of the change to marriage under new laws, I really despair.

Cheryl Gillan: I am glad I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene, because I think she has spoken for many people on both sides of this House.
	The Secretary of State is doing the impossible in this Bill in trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. As no Government are able to protect our religious freedoms, I am going to have a problem supporting this Bill tonight. The archbishop put it very simply in a television interview, when he said “There are issues”. I believe that the issues with this legislation cannot be resolved, so it is with great sadness that I shall vote against this Bill.

Jonathan Reynolds: Having listened carefully to the representations I have received from constituents on both sides of the debate, I will vote for equal marriage today. I will do so because I am a Christian, not in spite of it. I believe marriage is important, and I believe it should be taken seriously—certainly more seriously than how it is presented in modern celebrity culture. I also think there are things that undermine marriage and strong relationships—the lack of family-friendly working hours and prohibitive child care costs are among them—but I genuinely cannot see how my support for equal marriage undermines my own marriage, the marriage of anyone else, or marriage as an institution. If anything, I believe it strengthens it.
	I acknowledge that this is a difficult debate for some people. I understand that some Members have a different view from me, but I do not believe a case has been made to explain why the honour and privileges of marriage should not be extended to all. Some of the e-mails I have received have asked, “What protection will be offered to people who disagree?”, but this is a permissive law. It gives the right to conduct same-sex marriages only to organisations that wish to do so. I am genuinely not aware of anything from which people will need to be protected.
	Another of my concerns relates to the role of teachers in Catholic schools in the event of this redefinition. I believe that the Education Secretary has provided adequate reassurance in that regard, but I hope we can all agree that what schools should be doing is working to tackle homophobia, and that that should be the starting point for the discussion of these issues in schools.
	Some people have raised the prospect of “polymarriage” between three or more people if this change goes through. I find that objection quite offensive. Comments of that kind degrade the loving relationships of many of my constituents, and I feel that they make a poor contribution to the debate.
	One of the things I find saddening is that in many of the objections I have received is an assumption that gay and lesbian people and Christians are two separate groups. When a petition was read out in my church on a Sunday several months ago, I could see how distressed gay members of the congregation felt. It is a matter of huge regret that some people—only some—have not acted more sensitively when addressing this matter.
	While the overwhelming majority of the letters and e-mails that I have received have been extremely cordial, a number of them—not least some from people professing to want to uphold Christian values—have displayed a vitriol which I find extremely worrying. For instance, I have been told that my wife and I—my wife is chair of the governors at our local faith school—should not have married in a church if I am unwilling to vote against this measure. My response to that is extremely robust. If those people want to purge the various Churches of anyone who believes that faith is compatible with equal rights, they can do so, but they will kill the Churches if they do. There is no future in such a narrow, unwelcoming world view. We have reconciled many literal interpretations of scripture with modern life, and we can do so again on this occasion.
	One of the more philosophical arguments that has been presented to me is that marriage belongs to the Church and not to the state. I do not believe that that is true either. We have revised and changed marriage through statute repeatedly over the last 100 years, and I believe that many of those changes strengthened marriage, notwithstanding the claims to the contrary that were made at the time. They include the introduction of register office weddings and weddings outside religious venues, and changes in the law on sexual violence within marriage. Many of those changes opened up the honour of marriage to a wider circle of people, and they should be commended for doing so.

Andrew Gwynne: Does not the way in which the Bill is drafted protect the Church’s view of marriage, and, indeed, protect those in the Church who hold that view strongly, enabling them to continue to hold it without fear of retribution?

Jonathan Reynolds: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have neighbouring constituents, and the representations that he has received are probably very similar to those that I have received. I think that we can reassure people, but also celebrate a change that is welcome.
	I feel strongly that the majority of my constituents favour this change, but ultimately it is only on principle that any Member of Parliament can vote on the matter. It is my firm view that the change is right, that it promotes the cause of equality, that it will strengthen marriage, and that it deserves our respect and support today.

Stephen Williams: Last Saturday I went to the opening of an exhibition at M Shed, a museum in Bristol, entitled OutStories. It tells the stories of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in Bristol over the last half century, and it begins with the story of Oliver, a 55-year-old partner in a firm of solicitors, who in 1963 was found guilty of gross indecency and sentenced to three months in prison or a fine of £40. It reveals all the trials and tribulations of that half-century, the ups and downs, and the way in which the experiences of gay people in Bristol have changed during that period.
	Like all exhibitions, OutStories is not interested only in the abstract; it makes one think about one’s own place in history. For me that was rather easy, because I am mentioned in the exhibition as the first openly gay Member of Parliament to serve my city, and indeed the first on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was born in 1966, when homosexuality was still without the law and a criminal offence. During my life we have seen much progress, but it has come in fits and starts and has not always been easy. Throughout my teenage years and my years at university, being openly gay was virtually impossible, because occasionally it could be a terrifying identity for an individual to have. I am thinking of the abuse that I received myself, and the far worse that I saw meted out to other people at school and university. What I say to colleagues on both sides of the House who oppose what we are trying to achieve today is please have some empathy with what your fellow citizens have been through. Equality is not something that can be delivered partially—equality is absolute.
	Since 1994, when the age of consent was lowered to 18, we have had rapid change, and equal marriage is the last remaining significant building block in order for us to have genuine parity of esteem between same-sex couples and opposite-sex relationships.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree with the gay people who have approached me, who feel that the vows of commitment they are allowed to exchange in the civil partnership ceremony are not regarded with the same value as those in a marriage, and that is why they want this?

Stephen Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The introduction of civil partnerships was an important step and I would like them to be retained. I have plenty of opposite-sex friends who are not in a full marriage and would welcome civil partnerships being extended to opposite-sex couples. I hope that an amendment will be introduced in Committee or on Report to bring that about.
	Today, we are legislating to allow same-sex couples to show their love and commitment before their friends and family, and to have it recognised by the state as a marriage and, possibly, celebrated within their religious faith. This Bill is permissive: it allows faiths to opt in to having same-sex weddings. I welcome the fact that the three Quaker meeting houses in my constituency, the Bristol progressive liberal synagogue in my constituency and our Unitarian chapel may be among the first in the country to take advantage of this change, and I hope they will be joined by others.
	I wish that this debate was mainly about civil rights, but of course it has been characterised by discussion of the differences between religion and the state. Marriage is not the sole property of any faith or denomination; it has always been regulated by civic society, whether during the Reformation, with the various Acts of Uniformity concerning the liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer, or in respect of the rights of women in the 19th century. Indeed, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, which allowed women to divorce their husbands, was rather more radical at the time it was debated than what we are contemplating today. It was opposed by Gladstone, which shows that the wrestling with consciences that some leading figures in my party are doing today is nothing new.
	Finally, I wish to touch on the politics of what we are doing. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), whose position as a Home Office Minister did so much to bring this legislation to light. I also wish to thank hon. Members from all parties who are doing their bit today to do the right thing. Much of what we do in this Chamber ends up being the ephemera of history, but what we are doing today will be much more profound and will be remembered for a long time. It will bring genuine change in our country. What we do will be looked upon kindly by history.

Helen Goodman: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who spoke powerfully from his own experience. I am going to vote for the Bill to be given its Second Reading tonight because I believe it is right to give all committed, loving partnerships the same legal status. However, the Bill bears all the hallmarks of a rushed job. The Government’s confusion between a marriage and a wedding is made clear in the explanatory notes, which state
	“Marriage law in England and Wales is based on where the marriage ceremony takes place.”
	Surely that is a complete misunderstanding of what marriage is all about.
	I have two concerns that I hope will be addressed in Committee before the Government bring the Bill back for its Third Reading. I do not want us, inadvertently, to back the Church of England into disestablishment. The reason why the Church of England, unlike the other faiths, needs special mention is not to introduce a new hurdle, but to reflects its position as the established Church. Anyone and everyone who resides in a parish has the right to marry and be married in their parish
	church. Canon law, which embodies the teaching of the Church, is also part of the law of England. However regrettable some hon. Members feel this to be, the Church of England is not, in the foreseeable future, going to change its teaching on marriage, so this statute needs to reflect that position if the Church of England is not going to be subject to successful legal challenges. To put it another way, we need to balance people’s rights under articles 12 and 14 in the European convention of human rights to marry and be free from discrimination against the equally important right under article 9 to freedom of religion. Consequently, it is vital that that part of the Bill is not weakened in Committee.
	In another respect, I feel that the Bill does not go far enough. The Government say that they want to treat all marriages in the same way, but part 3 of schedule 4 exempts same-sex marriages from rules on consummation and adultery. In practice, I guess that consummation might not be a big problem. As for adultery, however, surely if sexual fidelity is central to heterosexual marriages it should be central to any and all marriages. Why is the Bill fixating on biological heterosexual intercourse? A similar issue arises in how the Bill sets out the rights of children born to lesbian mothers. Surely children born to lesbian mothers should have the same right to two parents as other children and the presumption should be that a married lesbian couple are both parents of the child if one of them has a baby. I hope that those Members who are on the Committee will consider that, as well as the rights of children adopted by gay married men.
	Finally, the trans community is often overlooked. I welcome the provision that will not require those people to annul their marriages in order to have their gender reassigned.

Mike Freer: I thought long and hard about seeking to speak in the debate. I feared the tone of it and how colleagues would seek to oppose the Bill. When they talk about gay marriage making them physically sick, or suggest that it is a step towards legalising polygamy or incest—

Matthew Offord: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mike Freer: No, I will not.
	Such colleagues need to remember that this involves peoples’ lives and we should remember that the words spoken in this Chamber hurt people far beyond it.
	When I was elected to the House in May 2010 it could have been the proudest day of my life. I should point out, in fact, that it was the second proudest, because the proudest day was when I entered into my civil partnership, which I did six years ago, with my partner of 21 years. Our civil partnership was a huge step for us, and yet many argue that we should be content with that—after all, it affords us all the same legal protections as marriage. I ask my married colleagues: did they get married for the legal protections it afforded them? Did they go down on one knee and say, “Darling, please give me the protections marriage affords us”? Of course they did not. My civil partnership was our way of saying to my friends and my family that this is who I love, this is who
	I am and this is who I want to spend the rest of my life with. I am not asking for special treatment; I am simply asking for equal treatment.
	People have talked about dissent, division and the heat of the debate, but sometimes leadership is about doing what is right, not what is popular. I congratulate the Prime Minister on leading on this subject. The issue has caused anxiety among colleagues and constituents. Some argue that this is not the right time, yet no one has been able to explain to me what the right time looks like. If not today, when? Monday? Next week? Next year? For me, this is the right time and we should simply get on with it.
	Much of our time in this House is spent on technical legislation. Today, we have an opportunity to do what is right and to do some good. I am a Member of this Parliament and I say to my colleagues that I sit alongside them in Committee, in the bars and in the Tea Room, and I queue alongside them in the Division Lobby, but when it comes to marriage, they are asking me to stand apart and to join a separate queue. I ask my colleagues, if I am equal in this House, to give me every opportunity to be equal. Today, we have a chance to set that right and I hope that colleagues will join me in voting yes this evening.

Michael McCann: I well remember the days when same-sex couples were denied basic rights: next of kin and relationships were not recognised, pension rights were not available to surviving partners, and discrimination in property and inheritance issues was widespread. Civil partnerships recognised same-sex relationships in law for the first time, and I am extremely proud that it was a Labour Government, with all-party support, who passed that legislation in the House of Commons.
	Legislation is not built on sentiment; it is built on fact, and I have to say to Members across the whole House that while that legislation unequivocally broke the back of unlawful discrimination, this proposal does not end any discrimination whatsoever, and has the potential to open up a can of worms of Olympian magnitude. I have to confess that I am bitterly disappointed at the manner in which people’s genuine concerns in this matter have been dismissed by Ministers. Logic has been responded to with platitudes, and there has been no greater offender than the Minister for Women and Equalities. I shall come on to that in more detail in a moment.
	I want to ensure that my views are recorded, because I do not agree with the comments from people who are clearly steeped in bigotry and hatred. My concerns are based on three considerations. First, the Bill, should it become law, will give no new rights to same-sex couples in England and Wales, and it is a complete fabrication to suggest that it is about equality. Indeed, the briefing from Stonewall—an organisation I greatly admire—makes no mention whatsoever of new rights.
	Secondly, I believe very strongly that the state should have no role in marriage whatsoever. Any couple, same-sex or not, should have access to civil partnerships or unions. If this is truly about changing definitions and setting them in law, for goodness’ sake, let us do it properly and allow the state properly to recognise
	relationships, treat all people equally and allow equal access to all the mechanisms of the state. By doing so, we would eliminate the controversy that arises when we start to use the same terminology as the Churches.
	That brings me to the third reason for opposing the Bill. On 11 December, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:
	“I know that many hon. Members are worried that European courts will force religious organisations to conduct same-sex marriages. The law is complex, but that complexity is absolutely no excuse for misunderstanding the facts. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and rights set out in the European convention on human rights, put protection of religious belief in this matter beyond doubt.
	The Government’s legal position has confirmed that, with appropriate legislative drafting, the chance of a successful legal challenge through domestic or European courts is negligible.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 156.]

Richard Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any case in any EU country where same-sex marriage is allowed in which someone has been prosecuted for holding the view that same-sex marriage should not be allowed?

Michael McCann: I am grateful for that intervention, because I am going to deal with that point right now.
	The much-vaunted quadruple lock is underpinned by case law. Everyone in the House knows that what makes case law is cases. I am damn sure—as sure as the sun rises in the morning—that a same-sex couple will go to a church or synagogue and demand to be married, their demand will be refused and they will go to court; and we in turn will have to wait to see what new case law is created. By that time, it is possible that none of us will be serving in the House—we may have left politics altogether or indeed left this mortal coil—but in that set of circumstances people will look back and ask, “How did we get into this mess?” They will look back in Hansard and say, “It’s because we made a bad law in 2013, and some politician said at the time that there was a quadruple lock, underpinned by case law.”

Jane Ellison: If we project forward into the future, is it not also the case that some Churches may change their mind, just as they have over the blessing of civil partnerships? Parts of the Church of England, and certainly parts of the Church in Wales, have already expressed a desire to go further than the Bill will allow. Society will evolve, but so too will the views of the Churches.

Michael McCann: That may very well be the case, but my proposition, which separates a recognition of unions and partnerships by the state and partnerships recognised by Churches, would make sure that there was no confusion between state and Church; there would be a clear distinction in law. That is why I am upset about what is being proposed today. Because the quadruple lock proposed by the Minister is to be supported by case law, the inevitable conclusion is that if case law changes, the Minister’s argument falls.
	When I came into Parliament I made a personal vow that I would never knowingly vote for a poor Bill or for a poor piece of legislation. I may unintentionally do that in my time in this place, but I will not do it when I know that what is in front of me is a poorly constructed
	Bill, which in turn could become a poorly constructed law. That is why this evening I will vote against Second Reading. That is my position, which I wanted to place on the record.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). His very last point was that we should never vote for something that we know is a bad Bill. What a statement for Parliament and parliamentarians!
	Today is a sad day for me. I think it is my saddest day as a Member of the House when my party brings in a Bill to which I am fundamentally opposed. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am sad that my party has introduced the Bill without any democratic mandate. I am not going to address the issue whether gay marriage is right or wrong, as Members on both sides of the House are making those arguments very well. I shall deal specifically with the democratic deficit. That is what Parliament should be concerned about tonight.
	I have listened to many of the short speeches that have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) started to make some interesting points, but the time limit stopped her developing her argument. The first democratic deficit which I draw to the attention of the House is the fact that we have only one day for this Second Reading debate, so that Members are reduced to speaking for four minutes, and many will not get in. It would have been much better if we had had the debate over two days. I hope that towards the end of the debate, the Leader of the House will rise and suggest that the debate be adjourned, and that we have another day so that all Members can contribute on such an important matter.

Christopher Chope: Would my hon. Friend sum up the conundrum by saying that it is the tyranny of the usual channels which has destroyed our opportunity of having a two-day debate? The Front Bench teams both support the Bill, which leaves the Back Benchers who are against it out on their own.

Peter Bone: The suggestion that I could ever criticise the Whips is outrageous. Our problem is that Parliament does not decide the timetable; the Executive does so.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a breach of precedent? A Bill dealing with an issue of conscience brought to the House on Second Reading, such as the Hunting Bill or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, would be debated on the Floor of the House, giving an opportunity to showcase Parliament and have a mature debate about crucial issues.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I hope, if I have time, to deal with that important point.
	Let me roll back the clock to the last general election. I have the three manifestos: the best one, “Invitation to join the Government of Britain”, which is the Conservative
	one; the Liberal Democrat manifesto, “Change that works for you”; and the Labour one, “A future fair for all”. I also have the coalition programme for government. I have read all these again and they make interesting reading, but they do not deal anywhere with the question of gay marriage or same-sex marriage. It is not even hinted at. I thought that I had better check the number of pages in those documents. The coalition agreement has 35 pages, “Invitation to join the Government of Britain” has 119, “A future fair for all” has 77, and the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto has 109—a total of 340 pages of promises and nothing at all about gay marriage.
	That is where there is a huge democratic deficit. When voters went to the polls, they did not vote for candidates on the basis that this issue was under consideration or the subject of a pledge by their party—there was no suggestion of that whatsoever. That is slightly misleading, though, because I vaguely remember —we were all working hard at the time—that the weekend or so before the general election there was a slight hoo-hah in the press to the effect that the Conservatives were going to bring in gay marriage. I thought, “Goodness gracious me—that can’t be right.” My leader, now the Prime Minister, had an interview with, I think, Adam Boulton on Sky television, and thankfully, when he was asked if the Conservatives were planning to bring in gay marriage, he said, “I’m not planning that.” So it was not in our manifesto or in anyone else’s and the leader of my party said that it absolutely was not going to be brought in—and two years later we find there is to be primary legislation about it.
	Why should all 646 of us, with our individual consciences, determine this matter? Why is my view or that of the leader of my party any more important than the view of the person in the Dog and Duck in Wellingborough? They have not had a chance to express their view.

Stephen Pound: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Bone: No, I am sorry—I want other Members to have a chance to speak.
	I have a simple solution to the problem. I hate to bring the EU into the debate, but the Prime Minister has gone for a referendum on that very important issue. Tonight, everyone on the Government Benches and everyone on the Opposition Benches could be united if the Minister, having listened to the debate, said, “I recognise that this is a matter of conscience and I want to put it to the British people.” We are going to have an in-out referendum on the EU in 2017, so why do we not put this matter off until 2017, and then the whole nation can decide on it, not just us 600 people here tonight?

Stephen McCabe: I apologise for missing part of the debate. I have been in a Public Bill Committee.
	I want to vote for the Bill on Second Reading because having thought long and hard about this and listened to a lot of people in my constituency, I think that the principle is right. It cannot be fair in this day and age that some of us enjoy a right and a privilege that we deny to others. I assume that the vast majority of the House will support the Bill on that basis. The Minister
	will not convince people who are totally opposed to it—I do not think that is possible—but I hope that she will concentrate on three matters.
	First, the Minister should think again about confining the Bill to civil marriage. It is not in our interests to make any judgments about the Church—any Church—or other faiths. It would be much better to let them define spiritual marriage as they see fit and offer it as they see fit. That would be very reassuring to a lot of people.
	Secondly, as this is an equalities measure it might be worth thinking about what there is to lose by extending civil partnerships to everyone. That would be a reasonable tidying-up exercise. I heard the Minister assure the House that no one who is opposed to same-sex marriage will be forced to promote it, and I believe she is sincere, but I hope that she will do a bit more in Committee to give those guarantees some absolute certainty. Lots of people who are not in any sense bigots are expressing genuine and legitimate concerns, and when making a social change, we are obliged to recognise those concerns.
	Finally, section 28 represented one of those dark periods in our recent history when we were being asked to accept a singular reality that denied the feelings and reality of other people. Today gives us a great opportunity to step away from that and to show that we have learned and moved on.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was a primary teacher when section 28 came into force. The class I taught in Peckham had children whose parents were gay, and I was debarred by my head teacher and the law from talking about their families as families. Passing the Bill will bring that era to an end. We should be proud of ourselves if we pass this Bill.

Stephen McCabe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a chance to extend the rights that we enjoy to other people. As long as we do that by genuinely setting out to protect and understand the feelings of those who cannot support the measure, the House will have done a decent and reasonable thing.

Gerald Howarth: I first put on record my appreciation of the Coalition for Marriage, which has done a fantastic job in informing not only Members of this House, but the wider public about the issue.
	I oppose the Bill for five key reasons. First, I believe it is simply wrong in principle. To overturn centuries of established custom requires a proper explanation beyond mouthing the equality mantra. What shaft of wisdom has suddenly alighted on my right hon. Friends that was denied their distinguished forebears? How come they think that they know better than the established Church? For the Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary today to pray in aid the argument that marriage “has evolved over time” is simply disingenuous. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) has pointed out, nothing like this has been proposed in Parliament ever before—this is a massive change.
	This Bill deeply affects the core fabric of our society through the challenge it poses to the whole institution of marriage. Reference has been made to Spain, which introduced similar legislation in 2005 and where the overall marriage rate has fallen by 20%. Since all research
	shows that children raised in married households with a mother and father tend to fare better than those who are not, the Government threaten to damage the life chances of the nation’s children.
	Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and others have pointed out, neither the Prime Minister nor any other party leader has a mandate, because this was not in any party’s manifesto, let alone in the coalition agreement.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has insisted on sticking to the 0.7% target for overseas aid on the grounds that he gave a commitment in 2009, and I respect him for that. He has stuck to that commitment, but not to the commitment to introduce tax breaks for married couples, and he has now invented a policy that he specifically ruled out at the last general election.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have had, at the very least, a draft Bill and pre-legislative scrutiny?

Gerald Howarth: Absolutely. This goes to the heart of the point that, as Conservatives, we are traditionally cautious about constitutional change, but that is not true of this Administration—sweeping Lords reform, a major change in the law of succession, and now this Bill are all to be rushed through on a timetable motion, subject to a three-line Whip. This is no way to treat Parliament or colleagues who have strong convictions either way on what is a very sensitive and important issue to all of us and our constituents.
	Thirdly, if there is no mandate, where is the demand for this change? A poll in yesterday’s Daily Mail—okay, it was the Daily Mail, but still—found that only one in 14, or 7%, of those questioned thought that this should be a priority. Another poll found that more than 60% of the black and minority ethnic communities—the very people that the Conservative party is apparently out to woo—are hostile to it.

Bob Stewart: The majority of the population do not seem to care very much about what we are talking about today, but the number of those in my constituency of Beckenham who do care and who have written to me in huge numbers saying, “Please oppose the Bill,” is far greater than the number of people who will rejoice if it is passed. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Gerald Howarth: Yes, I do agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Overwhelmingly, the letters and e-mails that I have received from my constituents have asked me to oppose the Bill. The fact is that the public do not understand the full ramifications of the Bill and what will flow from it if it is passed.
	Fourthly, there is already provision for civil partnerships, which provides most of the benefits of marriage to those in the gay community. Those of us who had reservations when the legislation on civil partnerships was introduced were reassured that it should not be seen as the forerunner of today’s Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord Filkin said in another place in 2004:
	“I want to put our position very clearly. This is a new legal status that gives rights and responsibilities to people in same-sex committed relationships… We do not see it as analogous to marriage. We do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. GC179.]
	Clearly, those behind today’s proposal feel no sense of obligation arising from the clear assurances that were given 10 years ago. How can we be sure that this will be the end of the process and that there will not be more?
	Fifthly—this point was alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) —what about the consequences? On education, the Department for Education states grandly:
	“No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs.”
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is doing a gallant job in difficult circumstances, said on the “Today” programme on 25 January that there would be “no requirement” on teachers to promote same-sex marriage. However, she added ominously that
	“obviously we wouldn’t expect teachers to be offensive or discriminate in any way about anything.”
	What guidance does that give to teachers in our country who have a profound objection to promoting anything other than traditional marriage? John Bowers QC, who defeated the Government over prisoner rights, has pointed out that there is no protection.
	I am not a Tory moderniser, for I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I shall not surrender my principles. I believe that this Bill is wrong and that the consultation process was a complete sham. The Bill is opposed by the established Church and has caused deep and needless divisions within the Conservative party. There is no mandate for it and it has huge potential consequences, not least the prospect of endless legal challenge. The nation faces much more serious challenges that the Government need to address. I therefore hope and pray that this measure will be rejected, if not in this place, then in the other place.

Emma Reynolds: I hope that one day, we will live in a truly equal society in which there is little or no discrimination. I do not believe that that is a utopian dream. I believe that it is a possibility, but we have a very long way to go. The introduction of equal marriage and the Bill before us are an indispensable step in the journey towards that equal society.
	It is disturbing to reflect—as many hon. Members have in this debate—on how the law used to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality. Until 46 years ago, it was a crime for a man to have sex with another man. Until 12 years ago, it was illegal for lesbian and gay people to serve in the military. The time when homophobia was incredibly and worryingly widespread is within the living memory of each and every right hon. and hon. Member of this House.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point and one that we should hear more of. Does she agree that it would be good practice to extend the debate until 10 o’clock tonight? Is she aware of any mechanism by which that could be done? This matter is too important to be rushed through.

Emma Reynolds: I would love to have more time and my hon. Friend has given me a little extra.
	It is also incredible to reflect on how the legal terms of marriage used to discriminate against women. Until the end of the 19th century, married women could not own property. Until 1991, it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. The law is neither perfect, nor sacrosanct. The law still prevents same-sex couples from entering into marriage.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is making a good speech. Let me take her back to the point about homophobia and how recently the things she described used to happen. I would like to reflect again on the case of Alan Turing. I recently attended the dedication of a room at the BBC in Salford to Alan Turing. Today of all days, we should reflect in this debate on the terrible thing that happened to him and celebrate how far we have moved on. I am sure that in her speech, as in mine, we will support this Bill as a step forward.

Emma Reynolds: Today is indeed an opportunity to celebrate the progress that we have made, but as I said at the start of my speech, I fear that we still have a long way to go.
	As law-makers, it is our responsibility to ensure that the law does not discriminate against groups of people on the basis of religion, ethnic origin, sexuality or anything else. We should be proud that it was hon. and right hon. Members, past and present, who tackled the injustices that I have set out. I am particularly proud that it was a Labour Government who did so much in this area—equalising the age of consent, abolishing section 28 and introducing civil partnerships. Some of the same arguments that we have heard in opposition to the Bill today are the arguments that we heard back then, but since then those changes have been accepted.
	There seem to be two key arguments against equal marriage, which I want to tackle head-on. The first is that it will somehow weaken the institution of marriage. That argument is simply illogical. On the contrary, I think that allowing more couples to enter into marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it. There are many countries in Europe and around the world, as well as many states in the United States, that have introduced gay marriage and it has not weakened or undermined marriage in those countries—quite the contrary.
	The second argument is that equal marriage would threaten freedom of religion. Again, I refute that argument. I wholeheartedly support the freedom of religion, but the Bill contains guarantees that neither a religious institution or organisation nor a minister of religion will be forced by the law to marry same-sex couples.

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: No, I will not—I will not get any more time, so it is not in my interests.
	Many European countries that are members of the Council of Europe have already introduced same-sex marriage, some—in the case of the Netherlands—as early as 2001. It has also been introduced more recently
	in Denmark, Sweden and elsewhere. Those countries have managed to introduce same-sex marriage while at the same time protecting religious freedom. As has been stated, no successful case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister underlined, the freedom of religion goes both ways. It is also right to protect and promote the freedom of those religious organisations that want to conduct wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. The Quakers, liberal Jews and Unitarians have all expressed a desire to do so. I do not think the state and the law should stand in the way of that. I know there is a live debate in the Church of England and that the Bill exempts the Church of England, but I am concerned about this. Only this morning I had a discussion with Canon Dr Giles Fraser. He passionately believes in the introduction of same-sex marriage and would like to marry same sex-couples in his church. My understanding is that the Bill as currently drafted would not allow that.
	The love that two men or two women feel for each other is equal to that felt by a heterosexual couple. Their love is no less significant and no less important. I passionately believe that it is time the law recognised this fact. It is time that the state stopped standing in the way of same-sex marriage and we celebrated the enrichment of marriage that this Bill will bring.

Christopher Chope: I shall be voting against this Bill because I am a Conservative, and also because an overwhelming number of my constituents are against it. I have had, I think, three letters in support of the Bill. That reflects the opinion in the Christchurch constituency.
	The proponents of this Bill are under one fundamental misconception—that because a man and a woman are equal before the law, therefore they are the same. They are not the same; men and women are different. Same-sex couples may be equal before the law, but we cannot force them into marriage, which at the moment is set up on the basis that it is between a man and a woman. Sir Mark Potter, president of the family division, spoke of the common-law definition of marriage:
	“The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”
	We ignore that fact at our peril.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend raises a good point about the constituency postbag that many of us have received. I am curious to know, however, whether he has looked at the age profile of the people who write to him. Surely, as it is for most of us, those who are older—60 plus—tend to be the most outraged by this Bill. I have five children, and if any of them thought I was going to oppose this Bill, they would think I was bonkers. The vast majority of people under 40 support this Bill.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We must have shorter interventions on the grounds that everybody wants to contribute. It is important that we hear everybody’s voice.

Christopher Chope: I cannot answer for my hon. Friend’s constituents but I know that my constituency has the highest proportion of elderly constituents in the country and I put that on the record.
	These proposals were not in our manifesto, they are not in the coalition agreement, and the Prime Minister expressly ruled them out three days before the general election. In 2004 I was a member of the Civil Partnership Bill Committee and I led 89 Divisions in that Committee. I argued then, as I argue now, that we should give a status to civil partnerships that is the same for men and women.
	During the debate, a number of hon. Members from across the House have said that civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I raised that with the Prime Minister at a meeting the best part of two years ago and he told me that he is against—he put it like this—“all marriage-lite arrangements”. If that remains his view, it is not reflected in the Bill before the House. The logic of that view is that we should exclude civil partnerships, and that the Bill should be amended to delete them in the future, while obviously allowing existing civil partnerships to continue. The alternative is to allow civil partnerships for relationships between men and women. If we allow civil partnerships for everybody, the Bill is not so likely to be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. If civil partnerships are available only to same-sex couples, yet at the same time those couples are given access to marriage, we will not be able to argue a case in the European Court of Human Rights against that proposition.
	We should be discussing the Bill in detail in Committee and submitting it to pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why I shall vote against the timetable motion and the carry-over motion. It is an obscenity that the Government persuaded the House to introduce carry-over motions as a standard form of the Standing Orders on the basis that we would be able to carry over Bills that had been first introduced in draft form, subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and then brought forward as a proper Bill. Having made no mention of this Bill in their manifesto, and without a draft Bill or even pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government are trying to push this Bill through quickly because they see it as embarrassing.

Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend also think it is outrageous that the Committee stage is not being taken on the Floor of the House? Any measure of this controversy and sensitivity should be discussed on the Floor of the House.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, and we should have had two days for the Second Reading debate. I am at odds with the Prime Minister on this issue, but there is no reason why we should be at odds on issues of procedure and process. If the Prime Minister is interested in the primacy of this Chamber and does not want all our legislation to go in piecemeal form to the other place, why will he not agree to a longer discussion on this Bill?
	The Bill could be introduced as a fresh Bill at the beginning of the next Session, and the time between now and then could be spent on proper scrutiny. For example, we have not heard from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which gave important advice to those who debated the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, or
	from other Select Committees, because the Bill is being rushed through. I hope the consequence is that the other place gives the Bill a pretty bloody nose.

Mark Durkan: I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on the principle of equality for civil partnerships. It would be remiss of us and a dereliction of this Parliament not, in the context of the Bill, to afford equality on civil partnerships. I regret the terms in which the Minister talked down civil partnerships in her opening speech, just as the Prime Minister has done.
	Many gay people will, for their own reasons, continue to opt for civil partnerships rather than civil marriage. They will opt for civil partnerships to maintain their relationship with their faith, and perhaps their relationship with a partner to whom they were previously married. If civil partnerships are to remain a valid and respected choice for gay people according to their lights and consciences, they should equally be available as an option for mixed-sex couples. They, too, might want to maintain a relationship with their church, their family or a partner from a previous marriage. All equality should be equal—that is why I will support the Second Reading of this Bill—but that should stand for civil partnerships as well as for civil marriage.
	The Bill was first trailed as a civil marriage equality Bill, on which basis I committed to supporting it. I will support the Bill on Second Reading on that basis, although its terms have widened, which has added to many people’s misgivings and to the sense that it is the thin end of the wedge, a slippery slope and so on. I understand, share and sympathise with some of those misgivings, but I will reflect that by opposing the programme motion. If hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill on Second Reading but who have also said there are issues they would like to be addressed in Committee want to be honest and honourable, they should not in good conscience accept the Whip to vote for the programme motion; they should vote against it.
	I support the Bill on Second Reading because I care for the legislative principle. However, as a legislator, I must also observe the principle of legislative care. The time we have been given to discuss the Bill on Second Reading means we have to soundbite our way through the debate—we have four minutes each to speak, which is ridiculous. I do not know how we can discharge our responsibility to legislative care in that way.
	Many hon. Members have said that the restrictions on the right to marriage have changed. People should emphasise that. They should say not that marriage has changed and therefore we should keep changing it, but that the restrictions on the right to marriage have changed. Importantly, restrictions on rights within marriage have also changed. Legislatures led the way on that when Churches were somewhat fearful of doing so.
	I am a person of faith. I am proud of my marriage and that it was ritually founded, but I do not believe that that is the only form of marriage to which people should be entitled. My sense of the strength of my marriage and its qualities will not be diminished if marriage is available to anybody else, whether they have
	a civil or Church marriage. We can look forward to achieving equality and legislating for it with the Bill, but we need to address serious issues. Churches appear to be treated differently. Some Churches can be named in the Bill, but others are told, “You have to be content with reading the implications and relying on interpretations of the Bill.” That is not good enough.
	I will vote for equality tonight. I was one of only 38 hon. Members who voted for equality last week in relation to an amendment to the Succession to the Crown Bill. I will be joined by hon. Members in voting for equality tonight, but where were they last week when they voted to retain discrimination at the heart of the constitution?

John Glen: I am very disappointed to have to rise to oppose the Bill. I never imagined that I would be put in a position where I have, by virtue of standing up for marriage, been characterised variously as a “homophobic bigot”, a “religious nutter”, a product of the dark ages, or, as I see in this weekend’s press, on the brink of making “a tragic mistake” that I will have many years to regret. This was not in our main manifesto. To cite that it was on page 14 of the equalities contract, a sub-manifesto that had little or no public scrutiny, is disingenuous at best.
	My concern this afternoon is to uphold marriage. I speak not just from personal religious interest; although sadly I feel it necessary to have to state it, I do not speak either from any sentiments of a homophobic nature. I hope that my friends who are gay would stand to that comment.

Anne Main: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend will be saddened to hear that many colleagues in this House who have professed themselves to be gay have said that they feel that they cannot oppose the Bill because they will have undue pressure from the gay community.

John Glen: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is most regrettable.
	The assumption of the Bill is that marriage is just about love and commitment. Of course marriage is about love and commitment, but it is also about the complementarity, both biologically and as a mother and father, of a man and a woman who have an inherent probability of procreation and of raising children within that institution.
	As an otherwise ardent supporter of the Prime Minister and his leadership in difficult times, I have tried hard to reconcile myself to his view on this matter. However, I cannot see how any Government can automatically confer marriage on somebody by passing a law without changing the nature of what marriage means. It will lead to legislative anomalies and undermine the recognised obligations and norms that sustain and underpin marriage as an institution. The Government themselves have recognised, in the text of the Bill, that there inevitably will be important distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. The Bill is clear that adultery and consummation will apply only to opposite-sex marriages.
	In the Stonewall briefing, those concepts are seen as “archaic requirements” and that “unreasonable behaviour” will provide sufficient grounds for divorce, thereby opening a whole new area of debate, confusion and differences within the same new proposed definition of marriage. For married heterosexual couples, the concepts of consummation and adultery will remain, yet they will not apply for same-sex couples who take up the proposed provision. This ludicrous situation underscores why, nearly a decade ago, the wise provision of civil partnerships was made—to ensure that same-sex couples could make an equally valid commitment in law, receiving all the legal rights and privileges conferred by marriage, but remaining different in name.
	By a factor of at least 30:1, my constituents have expressed their opposition. Those who are indifferent or in favour of the change are unlikely to change their vote over this issue, but the level of disappointment of a much larger minority, as witnessed by the 635,000 who signed the Coalition for Marriage petition, is keenly felt and will be a highly motivated electoral minority in future elections.
	I have stood up against homophobic bullying and prejudice all my political life, and I have to say that the language used by some Christians is, unfortunately, appalling. I want to put on record my abhorrence at some of the representations I have received. Homophobia can never be condoned, but redefining marriage is the wrong way to tackle prejudice. Huge numbers of Conservative supporters feel grave disappointment and alienation at the decision to pursue this legislation. The Government will say that they are strengthening marriage by widening it, but in doing so they are redefining it and in redefining it they are undermining it. If the Government want to strengthen marriage, I respectfully submit that they should leave it alone.

David Lammy: I want to say to the Minister for Women and Equalities that I was the Minister who took through the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and although there will be much noise and fire, she will look back on this moment in her career with great pride, as I do on the equivalent moment in mine.
	The measure of a civilised democracy is how we treat minorities, so it is important that we remember those who served on the Wolfenden report, now more than half a century ago; Leo Abse, who campaigned for many years in the House for the decriminalisation of gay sex; and those, including in my own local authority of Haringey, who in the 1980s wanted to fund gay groups and see our children understand these complex issues, but who faced section 28. Had we not passed that clause, we might have come to this moment a little sooner. It is to them whom we pay tribute as we move forward.

Emma Reynolds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of section 28 set back the debate, and that had it not been introduced we might have come to this point much earlier?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right. It was a moment—a great stain on the House—when we turned on an important minority.
	I have received many letters from people for whom this is all coming too soon. They say that the speed of change for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights is happening too abruptly for them to comprehend and that the country they live in, the traditions they live by and the people they live next to are transforming in ways that make them feel uncomfortable, upset and undermined. They are not homophobic or racist, they claim, but they say, “Not now, later”.
	To some extent, I sympathise. As much as I would want Britain always to be the beating heart of radical and progressive change, it is not. At root, it has always had a small c conservative spine running through it—an instinct that change should always be organic, a need for change to be owned by the people, not imposed from up high. That instinct must be respected, and I will be respecting it when I vote for the Bill, because it commands the support of the country, because it respects religious freedom and tradition by permitting, rather than mandating, religious organisations to conduct the ceremonies, and because it is the end of an organic journey from criminalisation to equality for the gay community that began over half a century a go. This change is right and necessary and the time is now.
	There are still those who say it is unnecessary. “Why do we need gay marriage”, they say, “when we already have civil partnerships?” They are, they claim, “Separate but equal.” Let me speak frankly: separate but equal is a fraud. It is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. It is the motif that determined that black and white people could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets. They are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers—schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty. It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and racists. It is the same statement, idea and delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote, but only if they were married and only when they were over 30. It is the same naivety that led to my dad being granted citizenship when he arrived here in 1956, but being refused by landlords who proclaimed, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.
	The phrase entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become. It is not separate but equal, but separate and discriminated against, separate and oppressed, separate and browbeaten, separate and subjugated. Separate is not equal, so let us be rid of it. As long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers of acceptance to go unchallenged. As long as our statute book suggests that love between two men or two women is unworthy of recognition through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester and we entrench a society where 20,000 homophobic crimes take place each year and where 800,000 people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work in the past five years.
	I am a Christian. I go to mass. I recognise how important this is.

Stephen Pound: It is a privilege to be listening to my right hon. Friend’s extraordinary and impassioned peroration. Does he agree, however, that there are Christians who look for love in every aspect of their lives and the lives of those around them who still feel profound misgivings and concerns about this piece of legislation?

David Lammy: I totally accept the manner in which my hon. Friend has put his remarks, and it saddens me that I have received many letters in my postbag condemning this legislation from people who share the same values and Christian ideals that I do, and who worship on a Sunday morning. I know them to be caring, loving and understanding people, and I know they resent the fact that those on the extremes of our faith have poisoned what is an important debate with references to polygamy and bestiality.
	Therefore, let us use today to return to a discussion of what marriage ought to be about. When I married my wife, I understood our marriage to have two important dimensions: the expression of love, fidelity and mutuality over the course of our life together; and a commitment to raise children. Gay men and women can now raise children—this House made that decision—so let us not hear any further discussion about having a family as if gay men and women cannot have that.
	The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name, and in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for those of religious conviction to vote for this Bill.

Fiona Bruce: My views on marriage stem from my Christian faith, and I want to thank Members for the respect I have always felt I have had in this place for my faith-based views. I also thank the many constituents of faith and of no faith who have written to me urging me to vote against this Bill—some 95% of those who wrote to me have done so. In doing as they wish today, I am confident that my conscience and, in the absence of any other mandate, my role as representative of my constituents’ views will coincide.
	I believe that marriage is a life commitment between a man and a woman for their benefit and the benefit of the children they may have, and for the stability of wider society, and that no Government should redefine it. Indeed, no Government can do so in a workable way, as this Bill illustrates. Let me explain.
	The Government say no church minister will be forced to hold a same-sex marriage, but will the legal rights of the many lay people of sincere faith who do not wish to support marriage other than between a man and a woman be affected? What of the Christian couple who own a heritage hotel registered for civil weddings and who wish to continue holding opposite-sex weddings but do not wish to conduct same-sex weddings? I understand that they will have no legal defence whatever against being sued in the courts under the Equality Act for discrimination in the provision of goods and services, and many other businesses will be similarly affected. It is therefore simply incorrect to say that the Bill will have no detrimental effect on religious or other freedoms.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On religious freedoms, is the hon. Lady aware that after Denmark changed its laws, churches there were forced to conduct same-sex marriages shortly after guarantees were given that they would not be forced to do so?

Fiona Bruce: I note that with interest, and hope to comment on it later.
	What of the church youth leader or parachurch organisation, or the faith-based charity that puts on marriage preparation classes? Will they be required to accept same-sex couples, or will they have to close their class or their organisation? If they do not, will litigation ensue, with all its attendant stress and costs, whatever the outcome? Will they face the loss of their charitable status or the withdrawal of any local authority grant or facilities because they do not have an acceptable equality and diversity policy? Can anyone guarantee that that will not happen as a result of this Bill? Or will such organisations and people decide to stay silent, and therefore have the precious right of free speech compromised as a result of this Bill?
	What of the legal distinction between the public-servant role of the employed registrar, such as Lillian Ladele, in a local registry office and the public function carried out by voluntary registrars appointed by local churches as part of their membership across the country? If those voluntary registrars—those lay people—refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, will they really be able to defend themselves successfully in discrimination actions in the courts, especially if the case goes to Europe? Without the principle of reasonable accommodation being part of our legislation—as it is in other countries with respect to matters of faith, and as it is in this country with respect to matters of disability—will not the Lillian Ladele precedent return when such cases are sent to Europe? She was unable to pray in aid the ECHR articles on freedom of thought, conscience or religion when she lost her case and her job. Why should people of good conscience risk ending up in the same position?

Chris Bryant: I am sure the hon. Lady will know that the Book of Common Prayer says that one of the three reasons in Christian conscience for marriage to be ordained is
	“for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”
	Why, in Christian conscience, should the state ban Christians—or, for that matter, people in ordinary society—who want to be able to share that from doing so, just because of their gender?

Fiona Bruce: It is ironic that, although the Government say that they want to promote commitment and equality, the Bill will not create equal marriage. It will create different types of marriage.
	Most young people aspire to be married, precisely because of the security that the commitment of marriage provides, but adultery with a married person of the same sex will not be a concept that is applicable to same-sex marriages. What message does it send out to young people about marriage, if faithfulness and commitment are no longer at the heart of it? Far from strengthening marriage and commitment in our society, the Bill risks seriously weakening them. The Government have had to put many locks into the Bill to protect people, precisely because they are concerned that they will fail, one after another.
	Before each daily sitting of Parliament, prayers are sincerely said in the Chamber by many of us. Our prayers ask that we should
	“never lead the nation wrongly”.
	I will vote against this legislation because I believe that we would surely be doing that if it were passed.

Anne McGuire: I hope that I shall be able to prove to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) that one does not have to be young to be radical. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has left his place, because, as I am one of the Ministers who took the civil partnership legislation through Parliament in the 2003-04 Session, alongside Jacqui Smith in the then Department of Trade and Industry—surprisingly, the lead Department on that Bill—I remember every one of the 89 Divisions that he provoked. I want to pay a special tribute to the right hon. Member for Melton. What is his name? Alan Duncan—[Interruption.] Rutland and Melton. I am never quite sure if that is a cheese or a wine—[Interruption] —and in his case, it might be both.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think he is a right hon. Member.

Anne McGuire: I want to pay a special tribute to the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) because, while in opposition, he led his troops towards what became a consensual approach to civil partnerships. Let us be under no illusion, however. Those of us who were around at the time will remember that, in its own way, the civil partnership legislation was no less controversial than the Bill before us. Many of the arguments that have been made today are the same as those we heard then. In fact, I remember being accused by the then right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, Miss Ann Widdecombe, of undermining marriage. As of next week, I will have invested 41 years of my life in my marriage, and I do not think that I have been undermining it.
	The Minister needs seriously to consider the concerns that people have on this issue. I agree that the Bill throws up certain questions. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in saying that she needs to nail down exactly what the protections will be for Churches other than the established Churches. I do not want to face any vicar, priest or rabbi and have to say, “I’m sorry, I got this wrong.” I want it to be right and the Minister needs to give us the right indication.
	We need to revisit the issue of civil partnership. In its time, it was seen as a step forward. We went forward in unity with the gay community which at that time wanted legal rights to be established for gay people. However, the difficulty that arises when piecemeal legislation tries to deal with a strategic issue is that we get piecemeal anomalies, and I think we will be going down that road unless the Government—if not in tandem with this Bill, certainly as part of a later conversation—think more about what to do with civil partnerships.
	There is a debate to be had about the separation of the secular and the religious. We can look at continental countries for which the only agency for marriage is the state, but where all the religious elements—I went through them myself in my own marriage—can be added on to that initial contract.
	I will vote for the Bill. I have received representations—some rude, some very polite—and had polite conversations, asking me to do various things. As a legislator, I have to make a balanced judgment, and I would emphasise that tonight’s vote is not a proxy for Europe, for leadership
	contests or anything else. I ask Members to vote with their conscience, do what is right and walk through the right Lobby.

David Burrowes: I will be generous and give the Government credit for the title of the Bill. It is about marriage and not about homosexuality. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), but I am concerned that this Bill has advocates—indeed, I have heard them in the House today—who of all people are liberal Conservatives who want to use it as a vehicle to redefine people’s views of homosexuality, rather than to redefine marriage, which is what this Bill is about.
	I have stood alongside my right hon. Friend in support of specific legislation to tackle homophobic hatred. Indeed, I have been alongside the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in my school, speaking out against homophobic bullying. This time, however, I will be in a different Lobby from them as I will be seeking to defend the social institution of marriage. We should not conflate two things. An underlying message coming across from some hon. Members, in eloquent terms, is that if someone is against this Bill, they are acceding to bigotry and homophobia. That is unacceptable. We stand positively for the institution of marriage—let no one mistake that.

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend for the sincere way in which he is putting, and has put, his arguments. Does he share my view that the reason the Government have had to put quadruple locks into the Bill to make sure that no Church will be forced into performing single-sex marriages is because they are worried that the locks will be broken, that cases will be taken to the Strasbourg Court and that Churches will then be forced to perform single-sex marriages against their will?

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let us be clear about this, because different things have been said about the Church of England’s response to this Second Reading. It has said that
	“we doubt the ability of the government to make legislation watertight against challenge in the European courts or against a ‘chilling’ effect in public discourse”—
	I shall come to that shortly.
	“We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable. Too much emphasis, we believe, is being placed on the personal assurances of Ministers.”
	When we face serious issues concerning the protection of Churches, can we rely on and take risks regarding the worthy and well-intentioned assurance of Ministers tonight? I believe not.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

David Burrowes: I will not.
	The position was well summed up by Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall. Soon after the lastelection, he told me that the proposal for same-sex marriage would “not advance gay rights” but would rather
	“put us in our trenches”.
	Sadly, that has been the case.
	Tonight’s vote is on a position of principle. It is not a practical measure about gaining equal access to marriage ceremonies. The vote is about the principle of redefining the purpose and meaning of marriage. The common law, as has been said, has always defined marriage as the voluntary union of one man and woman to the exclusion of all others.
	The state has become involved in refining aspects of marriage, but the essential definition of marriage, and therefore its meaning and purpose—its very foundation—have remained unchanged until now. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and others, this is indeed an historic change. The big hole in the Bill, however, is the absence of any clause clarifying that what the Government now want us to accept is the new meaning of marriage.
	The defining characteristic of marriage is exclusivity, a commitment to sexual fidelity, but the Government have taken sexual fidelity out of the definition of marriage by not applying the definition of adultery to same-sex couples. We have also heard little about the issues of children and parenthood. The Bill implies that the state now applies another meaning to marriage, which primarily involves the rights and values of adulthood rather than the rights and values of parenthood. The Minister is singing a new tune, a one-sided single: “All you need is love”.
	The Government must now spell out what this means for the institution of marriage. The redefinition downgrades marriage to a personal relationship, not bound by an obligation to society, community and family that has stood the test of time and is an increasingly popular institution.
	It has been said by Members on both sides of the House that this issue is about our views on bigotry and attacking discrimination against homosexuals. I do not have any truck with bigotry, but comments that have been made in the House today emphasise my concern about the freedom that is threatened by the Bill. I myself have been subject to abuse and even death threats because of my position on the redefinition of marriage.

Charles Walker: I am on a different side of the argument from my hon. Friend, but I have known him for many years as a friend and a political colleague, and I am outraged by the threats that he has received. The people who are responsible for those threats should hang their heads in shame.

David Burrowes: I do not have a monopoly on victimhood. The homosexual community has been subject to abuse which, sadly, has characterised debates about sexuality. It is intolerable, however, that as soon as Members of Parliament put their heads above the parapet and speak to the media, they are called “a homophobe”, “a Nazi”—I have been called that—“a bigot”, and many other expletives that I would not dare to read out. I have been told to be ashamed of myself, and to die: I have received specific death threats relating to my travel plans. I have been
	told that I am a disgrace, and that I have no right to express my opinion on this subject. My children have been told that their dad is a bigot and a homophobe.
	That is only the tip of the iceberg of rude and offensive comments that many Members have received via Twitter. I have broad shoulders, and I can continue to stand up and support marriage in Parliament. Today’s debate has not been characterised by hatred and vitriol—we have shown ourselves in a good light—but I fear for the liberty of the conscience of my constituents who may not have such broad shoulders: public sector workers, teachers and others in the workplace who see no protection in the Bill.
	I am not angry, but I am very sad that my Government have so hastily introduced legislation to redefine marriage. I am resolved to join other Members in proudly standing up for marriage—standing up for the equal value of people, whatever their sexuality, but also standing up for a commitment to the value of marriage as a distinctive institution for a man and a woman.

William McCrea: I rise to oppose the legislation presented by Her Majesty’s Government involving the redefinition of marriage. I know that many people inside and outside the House have desired a slanging match across and around the Chamber, but I feel that the issue we are discussing merits an honourable and considered debate. There are long-lasting implications for the nation, which will be felt when many Members of the House of Commons are no longer here.
	I trust that the Bill’s supporters appreciate that those who oppose it do so because of genuinely held beliefs and convictions, many of which were taught to them at their mother’s knee. Most people, even to this day, regard the United Kingdom as a Christian country. To some that is an embarrassment, while others thank God that our nation still has some gospel light and enjoys freedom of thought and speech. Each day, hon. Members gather in this Chamber to hear the Scriptures read and prayer offered to God, humbly asking for God’s blessing upon our Queen, her Government and our deliberations. We as leaders among our people still acknowledge God’s sovereign throne, the authority of His revered word and our need for wisdom far greater than our own. Sadly, after doing so today, we are turning from the teachings of that same book, and placing our wisdom and knowledge above divine wisdom.
	It is true to say that to mention Scriptures in debate in this Chamber often brings scorn, laughter, mockery, isolation and intolerance, but Scripture reminds us that God said it was not good that man should be alone, so he brought Eve unto Adam. For thousands of years, in almost all cultures, marriage has been defined to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution given by God for the good of all mankind in every age and has been the bedrock institution of family and society, but today our Government intend to sweep away a definition that has served our nation well for centuries and to impose new standards and values on the whole of society, irrespective of religious beliefs or personal convictions. Surely religious liberty
	and freedom of conscience are not to be cast aside on a whim, simply because political parties perceive that by doing so they will get some electoral advantage?
	Recently we have witnessed people throughout the United Kingdom experiencing persecution for freely expressing support for traditional marriage. We had a debate in this House last week in which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) mentioned Adrian Smith and Lillian Ladele, and we should not forget Arthur McGeorge, Dr Angela McCaskill, Dr Bill Beales, and Peter and Hazel Bull. Many of those people faced or endured suspension from their job, dramatic loss of earnings, demotion, disciplinary action and court hearings simply because they dared to express their belief in traditional marriage. Redefining marriage will have serious consequences, far beyond those intended by the Bill.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of teachers across this country could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in so far as the legislation requires them to teach the nature of marriage? If the nature of marriage is changed in this Bill, those who refuse to teach that new nature could find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. In recent times, I have witnessed intolerance against Christianity. While people do not dare to speak against other religious figures, the precious name of the Lord Jesus is often tramped into the gutter. Many regularly look at our nation and wonder what is happening to it. I say to a Member who spoke earlier that the Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love and worship, was not an illegitimate child, but was and is the son of the living God.
	When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to introduce her Bill, she was asked about the rights of teachers who fail to endorse same-sex marriages in the classroom; she was asked whether they could be dismissed. Do parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from lessons that endorse the Government’s new-found definition of marriage across the curriculum? What is the position for charities that promote traditional marriage values? What protection can they expect?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the minister of Holy Trinity church, Brompton approached the Government equalities office to ask whether marriage courses run by churches for the community could be affected by this legislation and was advised that they will be? Therefore, the Bill does impinge on the work of Churches and their beliefs on marriage.

William McCrea: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will deal with that point in a moment.
	What will be the position of youth organisations that depend on assistance from public finances to exist? Will they have their finances withdrawn? What are the implications for religion, liberty and freedom of speech? Is the Bill not the thin end of the wedge that will take us down a pathway that will lead to ministers of the gospel being dragged before the courts to prove themselves innocent, and perhaps even facing imprisonment? We are sending troops across the world to fight for freedom,
	yet we are on the verge of losing ours. The God-given covenant of marriage, as God defined it, is not ours to undermine; it is ours to protect.
	Although the Minister for Women and Equalities sought to allay some of the fears expressed, we know that she was not able to reassure Members on both sides of the Chamber. As I have stated, I expect unintended consequences. We are taking a journey—that must be emphasised, because it means that we are not at the end of the road. We will take further steps. Ministers might not be imprisoned or persecuted, but that day could come. I have no doubt that charities will face increased pressure to comply with demands and to drop their policies and firmly held beliefs. They will have to close their doors. The day of persecution is not here in this country, thank God, but, sad to say, it could come.

Stewart Jackson: Let me preface my comments by saying that although I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I was personally offended by his comments, which exemplified the tone of the debate. The suggestion that opposition to the Bill is akin to being a white supremacist in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 is absolute nonsense. Rosa Parks is a secular saint; she did not refuse to give up her seat on that bus for me to go to the back of the bus as a traditional Christian conservative who believes in marriage.
	The fundamental question is what price equality and what price freedom? Nothing is as fundamental as that. I was disappointed by the frivolous comments made by the shadow Home Secretary, which showed no respect for the sanctity of marriage and no gravitas, as though this was a fun issue to debate, rather than 1,000 years of tradition that predates politics and Government. This is not a video from “You’ve Been Framed!”, but a matter of people’s sincere beliefs and theological convictions, which should have received more respect from a Front-Bench speaker.
	We do not have to speculate about what might happen to Christians. One of the most peevish and mean-spirited acts of the last Parliament was the sexual orientation regulations of 2007, which forced out of business Catholic adoption agencies that made special efforts to help the most disabled, deserving and vulnerable children. Those agencies were put out of business, smashed on the altar of political correctness. Today, we are talking not about fairness and equality, but about a hierarchy of rights—“Your rights are more important than my rights.” Members who vote for the Bill should think carefully about that. They should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they want to be responsible for a Catholic teaching assistant being hounded from her office as a result of this Bill. That is not fantasy; it can happen. I believe that it will happen unless we do something about it, so I shall oppose the Bill tonight. That is the dark period that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned earlier. I make no apologies for section 28, but there have been dark periods on both sides, and the period following the introduction of those regulations was very poor.
	Secondly, there is no mandate for the Bill. The Prime Minister specifically ruled it out and it was not in a manifesto or the coalition agreement. This is not about
	equality, because as we understand from the debate—no one has challenged this—same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages will not be equal as regards adultery and non-consummation.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: No, because I do not have time.
	This is a major issue of civil liberties and the orthodox Christian tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. That is the important issue that we must consider. Specifically, we must examine this carte blanche approach—the suggestion that we should trust the Minister that the European Court of Human Rights will not intervene. Let me direct Members to the Evangelical Alliance briefing, which states:
	“Protections for religious organisations will only hold as long as the European Court does not itself accept a redefinition of marriage. Given likely accumulation of cases of precedence to recognise same-sex marriage in member states (and to see any deviations from ‘marriage equality’ as discriminatory) and the ongoing questions about the UK’s relationship to the EU, it is clear that any guarantees of legal protection are limited in scope and at best short-term.”
	The Bill is a Pandora’s box of endless litigation, offering division in society and setting one group against another. For that reason and for community cohesion, we must resist it.

David Simpson: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). I certainly agree with his sentiments. This is one of the most significant debates in this Parliament yet, by the same token, it is one of the most unneeded. The proposal was not included in the Conservative manifesto of 2010, as we have heard. The Conservative party, which leads the Government and which is the largest party in the House of Commons, did not receive any mandate at all from the people who voted for it to pursue this fundamental change to one of the great institutions of society.
	The Conservative party is supposed to be the representative voice of the fundamental Tory philosophy of standing for the conservation of that which serves society well, and for slow, organic change over time. Radical social change that undermines the long-standing and commonly understood definition of marriage runs contrary to that which the Tory party came into being to defend. I fear that this is about trying to detoxify the brand. I have a lot of good friends in the Tory party, but I say this to the Prime Minister, who has astonished me by introducing this legislation: this may appease some people out there for a while, but it will undermine the grass roots of the Tory party. We saw evidence of that yesterday when Tory chairmen and presidents went to No 10 Downing street. There is a price to pay for all of this.
	I am opposed to this idea, but that does not mean that I oppose someone who wants to live that lifestyle—that is entirely up to them, absolutely. My opposition is rooted in a positive affirmation of the validity of marriage as it is. I believe in equality. One of the foundational
	principles of the Democratic Unionist party is that people should be equal under the law, and equally subject to the law. The Minister tried to give us assurances that such and such is in the Bill, but may I put a question to her? When—not if, but when—schoolteachers, Churches, and preachers of the gospel are brought before the courts of this land or the European Courts and lose their case, will the Government pay their legal fees? If she is sure that protection is available, will the Government do so? I very much doubt it.
	May I tell the House something to back up what our brother, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) said? This is not the jurisdiction of this House. This is not the jurisdiction of this Government, of any European Government or of any Government in the world. This is an ordained constitution of God. In the garden of Eden, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. There is no doubt that this has been a vigorous debate, and personally I respect the views of people on both sides of the argument. It is a pity that the extremes on both sides have used the language and terms that they have.
	I approach the Bill wanting to support it, but I have concerns. Issues raised by constituents have made me think and ask questions, and made me seek answers and reassurances. For me, the points that have been raised reflect the many personal battles that I have faced and some of the most troubling and dark times in my life. Many people have spoken and written about deeply held religious beliefs. From an early age, I developed those beliefs, going to church without the support of my family. That faith grew over time, but in my adolescence, I began to realise that I was gay. Being gay in a small Welsh village really was like being the only gay in the village. It was the start of some very deep questioning about my faith and my sexuality that has taken me years to try to resolve, and I am still seeking answers.
	When the Bill was announced it reignited that dilemma and raised many questions. I believe in personal freedom and equality, but I also hold dear the principle of religious freedom. Many of the letters that I have received raised exactly those points. But marriage changed from the moment civil marriage was enacted. The state created an act of union that was separate from religion and the Church, so as the state is involved in civil marriage, I cannot see how we can make it exclusive. I want to live in a society that does not discriminate. That is why I support the Bill. However, I want to secure that personal choice for marriage, as well as personal freedom. That is why I welcome the locks that the Government have put in place.
	On reflection, I believe the Bill strengthens the meaning of religious freedom, which is a principle we should all uphold. Many religious groups that want to perform same-sex marriages are currently barred from doing so, which surely contradicts the true meaning of religious freedom. The measures in the Bill before us lay the decision whether to hold such marriages squarely at the doors of those organisations. It is not a decision of the state and allows each group to decide, bringing about true freedom.
	Where the state is involved is in extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. In an equal and free society, this must surely be right. Equality measures introduced in the past have changed attitudes, as I have witnessed. This is another step forward. Marriage is a wonderful institution, but for too long we have seen a decline in the number of people making that commitment. Rather than see the Bill as a threat to that institution, we should see it as a great opportunity to show how much better our society is when people commit to one another. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said in his article, for him it was a day when he went from “he” to “we”. I want to extend that to everybody in our society. At present I am not allowed to do that. How can that be fair? I want that opportunity to be there for all.
	Marriage is a sacred commitment. The Bill does not undermine marriage. Surely offering it to others can only strengthen it and ultimately build the better society that we all want.

Geraint Davies: I support the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis that it is the fundamental right of all people to have the opportunities and obligations of marriage, irrespective of whether it is between two people of the same sex or different sexes. Marriage bestows a host of benefits that should be equally available to people, whether they are gay or straight. There are practical benefits—for example, people consenting to their married partner having medical treatment abroad.
	The Bill opens up the opportunities for civil marriage and enables Churches to go forward as well, if they so wish. A couple of the arguments used against this are red herrings, in particular the issue of the definition of marriage, adultery and consummation. Most divorces are due to unreasonable behaviour, and it is obvious that if a gay partner went off with somebody else or there was no sexual relationship between the partners, that could be construed as unreasonable behaviour, so in practice there is a homosexual version of adultery and consummation. The draftsmen or draftswomen should be able to work that out. The argument is entirely a red herring.
	The issue of children has been raised in the Chamber and elsewhere. Clearly, the Bill is not about adoption. The stability of a gay couple and their ability to provide a loving and stable relationship for children is improved, not reduced, by the Bill. Surely it is better for an adopted child to be with a stable couple than with an unstable individual or in a care home.
	On equal rights to marriage in one’s own Church, the issue of freedom of religion arises. Whose freedom is it? Is it the freedom of the Church, when the great majority of parishioners want to go forward and ordain women, for instance, or want to allow all couples to get married? Some of these issues are for the Church. When considering in detail the position of the Church in Wales and the Church of England, we should be under no illusion that those Churches are under an obligation to marry all comers. Therefore, when this legislation goes through they will, as an arm of the state, be open to legal challenge in Strasbourg. That involves genuine legal questions that need to be answered. Irrespective of that,
	the journey that we are taking to create more stable families and a better society will be enhanced by this Bill to bring about equality in marriage.

Sarah Wollaston: There is a Bill before the other House to pardon Alan Turing. We probably would not be here debating in freedom today without his genius at Bletchley park, yet this remarkable individual—the father of modern computing—was driven to suicide as a result of his shameful chemical castration enforced by the state as an alternative to prison. I hope that the Bill in the other place is successful.
	If anybody feels, however, that this is some historical footnote, they should think again. They should consider the number of homophobic crimes that happen every year, and perhaps they should look at an MP’s postbag. I receive hateful correspondence, some of which suggests treatment for homosexuality. I can tell the people who write those things that homosexuality needs no treatment. Our sexuality is fundamental to who we are. We will all know people who have been forced to live a lie, bringing immeasurable unhappiness to themselves and those around them. Such marriages were not marriages—they were a sham enforced by society and the state.
	I am very proud that we in this House will shortly sweep away one of the last statutory discriminations against people with mental illness. Words matter. The word “marriage” matters to me. My understanding of marriage as somebody with no faith is no less valid than that of Members who speak passionately from their religious perspective. I would say that when this measure has passed, as I hope that it does, we will look back in five years’ time and wonder what the fuss was about.
	I well remember talking to a senior military figure at around the time we were about to introduce the ability for people to be openly gay within our armed forces. He spoke about the collapse of discipline and moral decay, but none of that happened; in fact, the forces became a much more open and pleasant place to work. In a few years’ time, will the marriage of any Member here feel any different—any less valuable—because we have extended that right to those who perhaps have different views from ourselves? This measure is long overdue.
	I ask hon. Members to remember that when Alan Turing took his own life, it is thought that he laced an apple with cyanide, an apple being the symbol of forbidden love. Homosexuality is not forbidden love, and it is time that this House recognised that, and recognised that people cannot be a little bit equal. We have heard hon. Members and colleagues telling us that this matters to them. If it matters to one person in this House that we recognise the validity of their relationship, then it is time for us to move on. Tonight I shall be thinking of Alan Turing and all those people who have had to live a lie over the centuries, all those people around the world today for whom being homosexual is still a death sentence, and the message that we send around the world if we do not accept and celebrate people who are homosexual and vote for love and equality.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Whether Members care to admit it or not, there is a natural, a biological and indeed a scriptural order to life. Marriage begets
	children, by and large; children begat families, by and large; and families are the root of society: they form society. That is a simple observation of life—a time line —but it goes right to the heart of what we are debating in this House today.
	This Parliament can tweak all it wants with laws and legislation, but it cannot pretend that marriage of same-sex couples is even close to being on a par with mixed-sex couples, because of nature itself. It is a fraud for those on the Government Front Bench and a deceit for this House to pretend that they can embark on something for the most pathetic of reasons—public relations reasons. There is a nonsensical notion—and it is just a notion—that this House is creating equality, but it cannot actually create that equality when it is nature itself that is not equal.
	Governments do not make marriages. It is nonsense that this House can, and that this Bill will, make marriages. Admittedly, the House maps over them and extends rights and privileges to married couples. Indeed, it extends status to married couples, but Governments do not change nature. Marriage would and did exist without Governments so, ultimately, tweaking this Bill to redefine marriage is nonsense. Governments can damage marriage and they can, therefore, returning to my first point, damage society.

Debbie Abrahams: Is not love the fundamental concept of marriage?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the hon. Lady making that point, because it echoes one made by those on the Government Front Bench. According to those on the Front Bench, the Bill is all about love, but marriage is not defined anywhere in law by love. It is exemplified by love—I love my wife passionately—but that is not what marriage is. That is an expression of a relationship. There are many arranged marriages and many marriages are loveless, but those people are still in law and by law married. Marriage is not defined by love itself. The vow that we take when we get married is there to sustain marriage, even after love wanes, if it wanes at all.
	We should accept that the state cannot create a situation in which people are in love, and neither can it legislate for that. There is no passionometer with regard to legislation. In fact, for those on the Government Front Bench to pretend that this is about some dewy-eyed concept of love is wrong. The fact is that the Bill does not create love for homosexuals and gay people; they create love for themselves. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that we are involved in legislating for love—we are not.

Chris Bryant: I do not think that homosexuals are looking for the law to provide love for any of us. The hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental mistake by trying to say that love is of necessity about romantic love. It says in law and the Book of Common Prayer that it is about mutual society. Surely that can be enjoyed by two people of the same gender, just as it can be by anybody else.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman makes my exact point. Both the Government and the Opposition have claimed, as has the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who intervened on me
	earlier, that this is all about love. It is not. It is about a relationship, and love comes as part of that relationship. This is not about giving love to homosexuals, or about allowing or denying them love. They have that anyway—that is the point.
	The Government do not have a mandate to introduce this legislative change. When many millions of married couples got married, they settled on a legal position, which is that marriage is a voluntary union of one man to one woman, to the exclusion of all others. That is the settled legal position that they swore to and agreed to. We now have a situation where that has to be set aside, because this House believes that it can change nature. I believe that this House is wrong.
	Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is not in his place, but he made some comments that fall into what I can only describe as the not-so-new phenomenon—which will now develop—of Christophobia. Anyone who expresses a Christian view is now going to face the allegation that they are by nature homophobic. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said that those with Christian views are compared to white supremacists.
	Any rational debate is being pushed to the side, slowly but surely, by this corrosive attempt to redefine the meaning of a word. That is a shame on this nation and we should guard against this change. That is why I will not support the Bill.

Jane Ellison: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate.
	To reflect on the last point that was made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), I think that it is fair to say that the contents of all our inboxes over the past few weeks are testimony to the fact that free speech is alive and well in this country. I am not aware that any Christians who disagree with my support for the Bill have felt in any way inhibited from expressing that view. That is great. I totally support their right to do so.
	May I also respond to the point that has been made continually about marriage having been between a man and a woman throughout history? Given that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until the late ’60s, it is ridiculous to make the point that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Until that point, a homosexual relationship would not even have been legal. Had homosexuality been legalised 100 years ago, we probably would have had this debate many years back. People must bear that historical context in mind.
	We must also remember that although we are talking about these changes, people face death, imprisonment and persecution for being gay in large parts of our world. The messages that we send out on these issues are therefore very important and resonate beyond these shores.
	I am not a religious person. My starting point in this debate is that if we can extend to some people rights that will bring them great joy and happiness, without damaging the rights of other people or institutions, that is a good thing. I believe that that is what the Bill sets out to do.
	As has been more than demonstrated by this debate, marriage is incredibly important to people of faith. However, marriage is not owned by people of faith alone. It has long belonged to civic society as well. I must speak up for that large group of people in this debate. It is easy to forget that many people still celebrate civil marriages. It is a good thing that they do because, given the declining church attendances over many decades, if they did not, marriage would be declining at a greater rate than it is. Many people enter into marriage sincerely and happily outside of religious statute. Let us not forget those people, because they need a voice in this debate.
	The other people whose voice has been lacking from the national debate over the past few weeks are young people. I represent the youngest borough in the country, which has the highest proportion of 25 to 39-year-olds in England and Wales. Many of those people look at us and wonder about the debate that we are having. Some of them have sincere doubts about the Bill and have expressed them to me, but many of them think that this is a Bill whose time has come.
	I have been surprised by the people who have written to me asking, “What will I tell my children if this Bill goes through?” The children of some of those people will be gay. That is a matter of statistical probability. I therefore hope that they tell their children, “If you’re gay, it’s okay and I’ll love you just the same. And guess what? I hope I can come to your wedding if you decide to get married.”
	Before my time runs out, I would like to quote an e-mail from my constituent, Matt Turrell, who said that I could do so:
	“I’m 38 and grew up through what felt like very homophobic years, which as a young person leaves you with a lasting sense of second-class citizenship.”
	Matt is now a photographer who makes money by photographing, among other things, civil partnerships. That picks up on the point about the inadvertent growth strategy, because he will, I hope, be able to extend his business in the near future to same-sex weddings. He wrote:
	“In every partnership I’ve worked at, there has been an overwhelming feeling of love between the couple and also love and support from their family and friends.”
	The Bill is not just about the gay people who want to get married; it is about their family and friends who want to celebrate that special moment with them. I very much hope that we will support the Bill.

William Bain: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison).
	Today’s debate is essentially about civil rights and equality—about whether we believe that inequality under the law can still be justified in our society or whether we believe that, as Martin Luther King once reminded us,
	“the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
	We have an opportunity today to join countries such as Argentina, Spain, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and South Africa—nations that have strengthened the institution of marriage by removing the inequality before the law that existed for loving, same-sex couples.
	Although many parts of the Bill deal with areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where an equivalent Bill will be considered shortly, with similar cross-party support, important parts of this Bill deal with the civil rights of my constituents and those throughout Scotland, with provisions that pave the way for the mutual recognition of marriages, marriages of service personnel and consular staff, and marriages entered into overseas, along with important provisions for the transgender community. There is great support in Scotland for the idea that the institution of marriage should be open to loving couples of the same sex and that the injustices faced by transgender people should be ended too.
	The breadth of those in favour in Scotland shows how much society there has moved on from the days in the 1980s of the hated section 2A and the social divisions over its abolition a decade ago. The most recent surveys of public opinion show that 64% of people believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry and that 68% believe that religious organisations that wish to conduct same-sex marriages should be able to do so. The support across Scotland includes 70% of women, 75% of under-55s and three quarters of households with children. It is the settled view of the Scottish people in wealthy Scotland and deprived Scotland, and in urban and rural Scotland. It was endorsed by a full 65% of those who made full responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the issue. That view is also supported by ordinary Catholics and worshippers in the Church of Scotland—by 54% and 50% respectively—according to the Scottish social attitudes survey. It is a view also backed by a huge coalition across civic society in Scotland.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is massive support for the legislation in Scotland among all sectors of the community, but none of the legislation we are debating today affects the Scottish people. It does not affect his or my constituents. It does not affect anybody in Scotland; we have our own legislation in Scotland.

William Bain: I am grateful for that intervention, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to check clause 10, parts 2 and 3, and schedules 2, 5 and 6. He is sure to find that they apply to his constituents and mine in Scotland.
	The Bill will achieve a great deal in equalising the marriage laws in their own right, but it will also have the effect of challenging and reducing the discrimination that same-sex couples and other LGBT people still face in our society. The Bill will strengthen marriage as a social union, but it will also strengthen our society as a whole, reflecting our values of diversity and freedom. This measure is about freedom. The right to marry is set out in article 12 of the European convention on human rights, drawn up by a Conservative Home Secretary and made part of our law in the United Kingdom by a Labour Government in the 1990s.
	Sometimes equality is delivered in huge leaps, on other occasions in small steps. Our society has made huge leaps to end the intolerance and, often, the persecution it inflicted on the LGBT community in our chequered past. Today is a small step, but a hugely significant one. By extending the civil right to marry to millions of people across the country, we send a powerful signal to the world about who we are and what we stand for.
	Let us join a dozen progressive countries that have already done just that and stand tonight united as a House on the right side of history.

Andrew Selous: This afternoon hundreds of Members of Parliament have come into the Chamber to discuss marriage. I wish that happened much more often, because the really big issue —the one we debate very rarely in this House, although it is an unfolding tragedy across our nation—is the collapse of family life.
	I have to take issue with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that family life had not fallen apart. In this country the marriage rate has almost halved since 1972, and the number of single parents has more or less doubled between 1980 and today. Four million children live apart from one or other parent, and every year 300,000 couples split up. We do not discuss that enough in this House, or what we can do to help reverse that situation and give couples the skills and support they need to make a success of their marriage and relationship. I hope this is not the last time that hundreds of Members of Parliament come together to discuss the important issues of family life. It is a huge issue that Parliament must not miss.
	In his landmark speech in December 2011 at Christ Church, Oxford, the Prime Minister said that the United Kingdom was a “Christian country”. Those were his words and I was pleased to hear him say them. What we are doing this afternoon should give us pause for thought, because we will be realigning the laws of this country in a way that is different from what Christian doctrine teaches. We should take note of what the newly installed Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said yesterday, and of what the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, and many others, are saying.
	Let me quote two verses from the New Testament from when Jesus was talking about marriage. He said that
	“at the beginning the Creator made them male and female…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
	That was Jesus’s definition of marriage in Matthew chapter 19.
	I absolutely recognise that homosexual people want to celebrate their relationships, and that is what civil partnerships are for. All the rights and privileges of marriage are vested in civil partnerships. If civil partnerships are not sufficient, we should create a new term—call it a civil union, a lifelong union. Churches are now able to bless civil partnerships if they are willing to do so, and we have the opportunity to provide the celebration that homosexual people are looking for without changing a foundational institution of our country.
	We have heard reassurances about protections, but looking at what has happened in other countries, I understand that in Denmark the protections that were promised to Churches are not being honoured and that they are being forced to perform same-sex marriages. I am worried about the legal position in the European
	Union, and others have mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and articles 12 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. It is possible that the situation could change. What of further redefinitions? Will this be the last redefinition of marriage? I understand that in the Netherlands and Brazil, three-way relationships are being legally recognised.
	We have heard arguments from all sides, and legal opinions have been quoted this way and that. Remember, however, the case of Adrian Smith who lost his job and was dragged through the courts and had huge costs—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Matthew Offord: We have heard many claims that the Government are introducing this legislation to make marriage fairer, more equitable, and available to everyone in society. In December, the Minister for Women and Equalities stated:
	“Marriage is not static; it has evolved and Parliament has chosen to act over the centuries to make it fairer and more equal.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 155.]
	That may have been the case, but marriage as the union of one man and one woman has never changed in thousands of years. Issues such as property rights or where ceremonies can take place have changed, but the essential nature of marriage has not.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Matthew Offord: No, I will not because I would like to get through my speech.
	This legislation would create “ungendered” marriage with two types of marriage available: same-sex marriage, or opposite-sex marriage. That will inevitably have implications on society’s view of marriage, but fairness will not be one of them. I will give way now.

Tom Harris: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the unchanging nature of marriage over thousands of years. I do not know whether he is a Christian—he has not yet got to that part—but will he have a good look at the Old Testament? King David, a man described as:
	“A man after God’s own heart”,
	had not one wife or two wives but many, many wives and concubines. He had children by them all and was never once criticised by the priests or the writers of the Bible. Of course marriage has changed over many thousands of years—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman but interventions must be brief.

Matthew Offord: I am grateful for that intervention, particularly as it gives me an extra minute, but I will come to that point later.
	One reason I oppose the Bill is that it will be an open-ended process, the consequences of which the Government and the hon. Gentleman do not appear to have considered. In an attempt to appeal, the Government
	have produced a policy on the principle of eradicating difference. The bitter irony is that it will lead only to greater inequality.
	First, civil partners already have all the legal rights of marriage, which is denied to many others who cohabit. Two sisters who live together for many years cannot enter a civil partnership, but if one dies leaving the property to the other, the sister who remains is liable for full inheritance tax on the property. That would not apply to female same-sex partners. That is hardly fair, is it? As a result of the Bill, same-sex couples have a choice of seeking to get married or seeking a civil registration. A heterosexual couple would be denied the opportunity to seek a civil registration and have only one choice: marriage. That, too, is hardly fair.
	However, what concerns me most is where this legislation will lead. The Government are unable to give assurances that certain scenarios will not develop. I suspect that many problems will evolve through the legal process because the judiciary will construct judgments that are contrary to the reassurances we hear in the Chamber.
	Many hon. Members supported the legislation introduced by the previous Government that created civil partnerships because the consultation document—“Civil Partnership: A Framework for the Legal Recognition of Same Sex Couples”—stated:
	“The Government has no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. The proposals”
	for civil registration
	“are for an entirely new legal status of civil partnership”.
	Just a decade later, we are in the House to discuss the matter again. When the Government say they have no plans to change the criteria for determining who can form a marriage, including a marriage between two people, their assurances are worthless. When I asked the Minister what consideration she had given to extending other forms of marriage, her response was that the law is pretty clear that marriage is between two people. Is that the same law that says that marriage is between one man and one woman? If so, another Government can simply change the definition to include as many partners as they want.
	Three Members of the House have said they find it disgusting that people compare polygamy to same-sex marriage. I would challenge all three, if they had remained in the Chamber, to justify that. The assertion was particularly galling because my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) refused to take my intervention. I could have explained to him that no one has ever made that justification. For the record, I have never made that comparison, but the evidence from around the world is that, once marriage is redefined and has a flexible definition, pressure grows for further redefinition. That should come as no surprise. Several advocates of same-sex marriage openly support changing the law to permit polygamy.
	In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Three-way relationships have since been given legal recognition through cohabitation agreements. There have been attempts in Canada to legalise polygamy through the courts using same-sex marriage. In 2007, an appeal court in Ontario ruled that a child can legally have three parents.
	Polygamy already exists in this country. The Government recognised in 2007 that there were more than 1,000 bigamous or polygamous marriages in England and Wales. That was identified by Members and peers in the House of Lords. The unintended consequence of the Bill will be allowing the introduction of polygamous marriages, as advocated last night on television by Peter Tatchell. Therefore, I will vote against the Bill on behalf of almost 1,000 of my constituents who have made clear their opposition.
	Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), I am angry that I have defended people who are homosexual, including many who have left the Chamber, who then deride me as a bigot, and send me text messages saying that I am wrong just because I do not support them. I bitterly resent that.
	Equality does not mean that we should treat everything the same. We certainly do not have the right to redefine marriage over the heads of our constituents.

Peter Bottomley: The primary commandment is to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. I have been reminded by one ordained constituent that that should be used as a way of defining the second great commandment, which is to treat my neighbour as myself. Essentially, we are asking whether we can remove the barriers that stop same-sex couples enjoying the commitment—the “at one” meaning—of marriage. That is what the Bill comes down to. It does not redefine marriage; it just takes away barriers.
	I was taught by three people who were homosexual. I only knew one was homosexual at the time. He got married aged 60 to a woman, one got murdered by a rent boy and one spent 30 years in the Community of the Resurrection. In his book, “Someday I’ll Find You”, Harry Williams, who also wrote “The True Resurrection” and “The True Wilderness”, explained the difficulty of coming to terms with his homosexuality. He should not have had to do that. He should have had the chance of a happy life, whether or not he chose to partner with somebody else.
	People have said that there is huge psychological effect on a child of being brought up by two people of the same sex. That is not my experience of those I know. Incidentally, the children who turn out best are not those of a husband and wife married to each other throughout the child’s upbringing, but those of widows, because widows feel a sense of responsibility and have the support of society.
	Leaving children aside, we ought to have the same kind of understanding that Margaret Thatcher showed when, in 1967, she voted for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. That was the year Chief Justice Warren of the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a unanimous judgment in a case called Loving v. Virginia, where a couple, one called “Black” and one called “White”, wanted to be married in the state of Virginia. Read the judgment and understand that that case got to the Supreme Court because people were putting arguments against people of different colour being able to live together. Those arguments are absurd now, and it is absurd that we are having this debate.
	The difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that in a civil partnership the registrar speaks and in a civil marriage the couple are able to say “I do” and “I declare”, in the same way that in church they say “I will”—but in the civil sense, that is the only difference. I wish that those who have spoken against the Government’s proposals—incidentally, they were foreshadowed in “A Contract for Equalities”, which was launched by the current Home Secretary before the general election—

Therese Coffey: Three days before.

Peter Bottomley: Three days before, as my hon. Friend says. Those who say that there was not a codicil, at least, in the manifesto are factually wrong. Most people did not know about it, but that is not the important point. We have had two and half years of notice and warning, but we ought to recognise that we in fact have had about 50 years.
	If we go back, it is 177 years since civil marriage was brought in, and it is 187 years since the third English university was created where people could go without being an Anglican. We have to remember that we are taking away some of the barriers that we ought to have got rid of a long time ago.
	A man called Tribe, in a book from 1935 called “The Christian Social Tradition”, stated:
	“The problem of society is the finding of unity in diversity, and to reconcile freedom with order.”
	I think that is loving my neighbour as myself, and that what I have experienced, good or bad, others should have a chance of choosing or avoiding. I have not experienced discrimination. I have watched others who have. I hope that when this matter is concluded those who have spent their time writing messages saying that we are all wrong will realise, as people did with the creation of civil partnerships, that maybe they can see life differently in the future.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I will try, in this shortened time, to vary my comments. I have a deep respect for so many hon. Members who have put their heart and conscience on show in this debate. I approach this subject from idiosyncratic principles.
	I was thinking only the other day that at the moment, along with other hon. Members, I am actively supporting the Plymouth Brethren’s right to equal charitable status with other groups. I will continue to do that, even though I am not a member of the Plymouth Brethren and even though the Plymouth Brethren live a life that is, shall we say, somewhat different to that of the majority of people or even to my lifestyle. I have always supported Jewish and Muslim communities in their attempts to maintain their faith—right through to halal, schechita and so on. I will continue to do that because I believe—I cannot remember which hon. Member said it—that the test of a civilised society is its protection of minorities. That is the kind of place I come from. Added to which, I am a Roman Catholic—a bad one I must admit, in all kinds of ways.
	I made a promise to my constituents that I would not support anything that brought any problems to Churches or faith groups—whether they be Plymouth Brethren, Muslims or Roman Catholics—if there was any challenge to their right to keep to their definition of marriage. I shall come back to theology, which has been mentioned by a number of people who are far more expert than me.
	I am satisfied with the lock. The Danish example has been mentioned, but apparently in Denmark the Parliament did not include the protections that the Minister has provided for in the lock.
	I equate this debate with what happened to divorce law in the previous century. Interestingly, in all this talk about marriage always being the same and its continued popularity, no one seems to have mentioned the loosening of the divorce laws. As I said, I am a Roman Catholic, and in that faith divorce is treated differently, but nobody, to my knowledge, has ever challenged the right of a Roman Catholic priest or, indeed, an Anglican to refuse to marry a divorced couple. It has never actually happened, and that is how I see this issue. I approach it with principles based on the reciprocity that exists in any democratic society between minorities and our protection of their rights. I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
	Other Members mentioned civil partnerships. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) went slightly over the top and historically I think he was incorrect. It was not Rosa Parks to begin with. The principle of separate but equal was defined as wrong by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Topeka Education Board in 1959—if my history teaching is still there. Nevertheless, he was right about it being different. All we are asking for in the Bill, principally, is civil marriage. The majority of existing civil marriages are between divorcees, so the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise them anyway, and that is fine; it is permitted—and it will be permitted to keep its particular beliefs in this case as well.
	Some faiths—this is where the theology gets complicated—and Christian groups actually want to carry out these marriages. I thought that was what I came here to do—to protect those freedoms and retain that balance. As I said, that is the principle I work on: a reciprocity between minorities in respect of their beliefs and right to carry on with their lifestyle as they wish, provided it does not interfere with that of others. I do not see how the Bill creates any problems with that or will prevent me in future from defending the Plymouth Brethrens, the Jewish faith, my own Church’s faith or the Muslim faith.

Crispin Blunt: Some people say that the Bill is just about semantics, but semantics matter and words express the values of our society. The Bill is part of an astonishing and wonderful change that has taken place over the past 50 years and which has taken millions of us from criminalisation to legal equality and the enjoyment of self-worth and validation.
	Those sentiments were certainly not apparent to me as a young man. I thought there was something wrong with me that had to be mastered, and for three decades I managed that struggle. The relief and happiness that
	comes from not having to do so any longer is due to the courage of others who fought for all the measures to advance equality over the past five decades that are the precursors to today’s Bill. My comments need therefore to be understood in the context of my enthusiasm and appreciation for those who have been prepared to lead on this issue, particularly the Prime Minister.
	The final line of the Stonewall briefing for the debate reads:
	“Stonewall therefore urges you to support this modest final legislative measure of equality for homosexual men and women in England and Wales”.
	As presented, however, the Bill is not the final measure. While civil partnerships remain open only to same-sex couples, we will have retained an inequality that we will have to revisit. However much I have tried to explain to my constituents that we propose to legislate to deliver equality in the eyes of the state, protecting the beliefs of the religious, I do not believe that my constituents of faith understand the distinction between marriage in the eyes of the state and marriage in the eyes of their God.

Mark Menzies: I am a Catholic and religious freedoms are very important to me, as is my religion, but so too are equality and tolerance. I think that the Bill protects both those things. I came here to abstain, but I have listened to the debate like I have listened to no other, and it is now my intention not to abstain, but to support the Bill .

Crispin Blunt: I am delighted to hear that intervention from my hon. Friend. I advocate that Members support the Bill and make those distinctions even clearer as the Bill passes through the House.
	Much as the Bill will be another step forward, even unamended it gives us the vehicle properly to differentiate marriage in the eyes of the state from religious marriage. Simply put, we should be legislating for equal civil marriage and enabling religious organisations to carry out same-sex marriages if they wish to do so, and protecting them if they do not.

Brooks Newmark: In supporting that point, I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of the book “Animal Farm”, in which all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, and is it not now time, in 21st-century Britain, that men should be allowed to marry men, women should be allowed to marry women, and men should be allowed to marry women in a civil marriage, not a religious marriage?

Crispin Blunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to distinguish between civil marriage in the eyes of the state, which we are absolutely entitled to legislate for—indeed, there is a requirement on us to do so—and marriage in the eyes of people’s gods and religious beliefs, which is different.
	I therefore advocate a situation such as in France, where one ceremony is required in the eyes of the state as well as another religious service, or, preferably, for religious organisations to be able to deliver marriage in the eyes of the state. Either of those positions would be better than continuing inequality, and I predict that if we do not change this Bill, Parliament will have to revisit the issue.
	If this more fundamental change meets both the profound concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and a number of others and the test of permanent equality in the eyes of the state, it has much to recommend it. This Bill starts us down the right road, and I welcome it, but I urge the House to do a thorough job in Committee and on Report so as not to leave avoidable unfinished business.

John Howell: Like most hon. Members, I have thought long and hard about this issue. I am a keen proponent of equal opportunity, and I recently celebrated my 25th wedding anniversary so I greatly value the institution of marriage. Also like many hon. Members, I have received a large number of letters and e-mails on this subject. I therefore undertook my own research into the issues raised, and in July I published a paper setting out my response. At the time, I concluded that no compelling case had yet been made against the change. I stand by that paper’s conclusion; I wish us to move towards being a society more at ease with itself.
	Since the Bill was published, e-mails have continued to be sent to me, and I have great respect for the deeply held views that have been expressed. I am particularly grateful to those who have entered into genuine debate with me and those who have put their own case with generosity of spirit. This is a matter of conscience and we must all respond with integrity, as we have done in this debate. The outcome at the ballot box must not be allowed to drive this important debate, and I resent the implication that it should.
	In my paper, I pointed out that Spain served as a good example. It allowed gay civil marriage in 2005. There have been no changes since. The new conservative Government of the Partido Popular have not moved to change it, and life has gone on as normal. That is unsurprising, as fewer than 2% of marriages have been same-sex marriages.
	Through discussion, I have come to realise that there is a lack of depth and a lack of clarity in some of the responses, and although support for this Bill today will serve to send it on to Committee for scrutiny, I am concerned that some of the issues may be too fundamental to be resolved by that process. I therefore ask Ministers how open they are likely to be in Committee to undertaking fundamental reform, including reviewing civil partnerships.
	I, too, have been troubled by the issues before us. Deep down, I remain of the view that, in the end, it is right to make it legal for two people of the same gender to marry. I cannot comprehend that a gay marriage would undermine a heterosexual marriage, but I have come to question whether this Bill might have been prepared in haste, and whether it would be possible to address its deficiencies in Committee.
	I am also sure that much of the public disquiet that is felt is due to the speed with which this proposal has come forward. I agree that it was in the equalities contract produced just before the general election, but it was not in our main manifesto, the coalition agreement or the Queen’s Speech. While none of that is essential for introducing legislation, a change of this type touches deep emotions and we need to allow time for proper reflection on the genuine concerns raised by so many
	people. We also need to allow for discussion and understanding; so far, there has only been time for argument and counter-argument.
	Given my thoughts on this issue, I cannot in all conscience vote against the Bill, but I ask the Minister for reassurance that the Committee will play a fundamental role in looking at the issues involved and that we can begin the education process that has been missing over the past few months as one side has simply stood and shouted at the other.

Ben Gummer: Many Members have already spoken powerfully and I have nothing to add to that expression of feeling. I want to speak about the reason for the Marriage Act 1836 coming into being, which is related to the matters that we are discussing today.
	The Act was introduced to protect people who dissented from the common view at the time. Before 1836, people had to get married in a Church of England church, which was anathema to the many Roman Catholics, non-conformists and Quakers and the very small number of atheists. The then Government under Viscount Melbourne introduced the legislation to protect the liberties of those people. A case cited in the House at the time involved a Roman Catholic lady who had married a fellow Roman Catholic in a clandestine marriage. The husband then ran off and she was left destitute because they did not have a proper marriage contract in law.
	The 1836 Act, in seeking to protect a number of minorities, was a very forward-looking piece of legislation. The arguments marshalled against it were not dissimilar to those that we are hearing today. It was argued that marriage was somehow exclusively the preserve of religion, and that extending it into the secular sphere in any way would devalue it. At that time, the number of people, such as atheists, who were married in secular ceremonies was minuscule, but the figure has now risen to 60% of marriages and we do not regard such marriages as being of any less worth or involving any less love than those that are conducted in a church. I believe that, 177 years later, we should now seek to protect the love, the freedoms and the liberties of another minority that has been oppressed and forgotten for so long.

Gavin Barwell: In some ways, this is the most difficult issue that I have faced in my two and a half years as an MP. The majority of my constituents support the proposal, but many do not and some of those people feel very strongly about it. Also, I find myself on a different side of the argument from some of my colleagues and close friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).
	In other ways, however, the issue is clear cut. I have constituents who are in same-sex relationships and who want to get married. I have faith groups in my constituency that want to conduct same-sex marriages. We have heard a lot today about religious freedom. It would be totally wrong for any Church or mosque to be forced to conduct any wedding against its wishes, but it is equally wrong that faith groups in this country that want to
	conduct same-sex marriage services are prevented from doing so by the present law. There is clear public support for the proposal.
	As a Conservative, I am a passionate believer in marriage as a force for good, and I lament its decline in our society. We have people who want to get married, yet some of us are not sure whether we should allow that to happen.
	We have heard two main reasons for opposing the legislation. We have been asked to guarantee that it will not be successfully challenged in the courts. In fact, no Member can guarantee that the present law will not be successfully challenged. The question should be whether there is a credible risk of such a challenge, and the answer to that is no. Countries that already have this law have not been challenged. For years in this country, we have allowed divorced people to remarry in church, yet the Catholic Church’s policy of not remarrying divorcees has not been challenged. The most eminent lawyers in the country tell us that the risk is inconceivable, and the Church of England’s own briefing states that the Church does not believe it to be realistic or likely.
	The other argument against the legislation is that it would undermine marriage. Mrs Barwell suffers enough as a result of my job, and if I thought it likely that I would go home tonight only to be accused of undermining my marriage by voting for the Bill, I would not vote for it. However, no one has yet come up with a credible explanation of how it would undermine marriage. Yes, it is controversial, but decriminalising homosexuality was controversial, as was our equalising the age of consent. It was also controversial when the Labour Government rightly legislated for civil partnerships. Once those things were done and the world did not end, public opinion changed, and that is what will happen when this legislation is passed.
	I am by nature a small “c” conservative. I do not like change. There is a part of me that would like to take the world back to 1990 when my father was healthy, when I did not have the pressures of a demanding job and England were in the semi-finals of the World cup. There is another part of me, however, that recognises the failure of that approach. For conservatism to work, we have to accept that the world changes. If we do not, we become an anachronism. What we have to do as Conservatives is shape that change and try to preserve the best of what we inherited. That is what this Bill does. If it becomes law, it will not undermine marriage; it will not lead to Churches or mosques that do not wish to do so being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. What it will do is allow people of the same sex who love each other to exchange the same vows that Karen and I exchanged and to be part of the same institution.
	I will conclude by quoting a comment that was posted on my website:
	“I grew up under Thatcher, the gay son of a one parent family in Croydon, and got used to the endless moral scapegoating that the Conservatives subjected me to—ironic, given that I was otherwise a nice middle class child and classic Tory voting material—and the result of my experience was a real hatred towards the Tories. To have a group of Conservatives now fighting for me to be treated as an equal is refreshing and something I never thought I would see.”
	Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who was sitting in front of me, I am a Conservative moderniser. To people watching
	this debate today, I say this: I believe in marriage, I believe in religious freedom and I believe that the law of this country must treat people equally. That is why I will walk through the Lobby and vote for this Bill with pride. When I cease to be an MP and look in the mirror, I will still be proud of that.

Kris Hopkins: I support the Bill, and I would like to compliment Members on the tone of the debate and on some of the exceptional speeches I have heard from both sides of the argument.
	On the morning of 2 May 1997, I was watching TV amid the immense excitement of new Labour’s landslide. Of course, as a Conservative I was watching the news that my party had just been humiliated in one of its biggest defeats in electoral history. How had we gone from being a party with four electoral successes to become a party on the edge of political extinction? The reality is that some people were tired of us, and many hated us. There were also issues such as sleaze. My observation was that, despite the many great things we had done in government, society had moved on and we had not.
	Thirteen years later, on the steps of No. 10, the Prime Minister recognised and generously acknowledged that in Labour’s time, the country had become a more open one. He was right to recognise that. The journey my party has gone on since 1997 involved rethinking some of the issues we faced—for example, the rhetoric of race and engaging with the black and ethnic minority community, single parenthood, disability, a commitment to higher education for all people and not just a minority, embracing the NHS, leadership on international development and, yes, a monumental confidence that we have shown in supporting the lesbian and gay community. All those testify to a modern Conservative party, now reflecting the values of modern Britain in ways that we could not have contemplated, let alone sympathised with, in 1997. I say that not because I am pursuing votes and constructing an argument around that, but because I want to see my party reflect the values of this country.

Kevan Jones: If a majority of Conservative Members go through the No Lobby tonight or abstain, does that not show that what we have is a PR veneer rather than real change in the Conservative party?

Kris Hopkins: I do not agree with that. What it demonstrates is that a modern Conservative Prime Minister has put forward a really progressive idea, which we can support. Today we are on the road to equality—an idea promoted by a Conservative Prime Minister—fiercely debated by my party with significant challenge from within, and I would not expect anything different.
	I have been contacted by about 120 people, the vast majority of whom asked me to oppose the Bill. I would like to thank most of them for giving me considered and thoughtful views on both sides of the argument. I have laid out my own case here today, but it is important to bear in mind that people of religious faith do not want Churches to be forced to marry people of the same sex. That point has arisen time and again in the debate, but I am confident that we have put the necessary safeguards in place. I want to make it clear to my
	constituents who have that fear that the Government have taken the issue seriously and are embarking on the right route.
	We have debated this matter at great length, but all the polling evidence suggests that the vast majority of people out there in the real world support the principles behind the Bill—certainly the vast majority of people to whom I have spoken support them, as do the vast majority of young people. I am talking about people under 50.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Hang on!

Kris Hopkins: Sorry, Eric.
	We need to respect those of religious faith, but I believe that this is right. It is right that we promote marriage to all, it is admirable, and it is the right thing to do.

Therese Coffey: It is a privilege to take part in the debate. Speeches of high quality have been made by Members on both sides of the argument who feel passionately about the issue, and in general the tone has been measured.
	I shall be voting against the Bill because my perspective on what marriage is really about is different from that of some other Members. Of course marriage is about loving commitment to one another, but for me it is fundamentally still about family, the bedrock of society. Marriage involves special provisions, such as support for the family and the procreation of children. Of course that is not the case for all families, for various reasons, but I nevertheless think those provisions are too important to be tampered with in rushed legislation that has not been subject to adequate consultation.
	We can request as many legal opinions as we like, but the Government do not plan to indemnify any institution against legal costs if the measure is challenged in courts in this country or in the European Court of Human Rights. They are also continuing to confine civil partnerships to people of the same sex, perpetuating what is effectively a two-tier institution, either by not repealing the law or by denying it to people of opposite sexes. I feel that there are too many inconsistencies, and there is no doubt that the intertwining of Church of England law with the law of England is very difficult to unpick.
	I think Members recognise that those who oppose the Bill do not oppose it because they are homophobes, or solely for religious reasons. In fact, more Catholic Conservative Members will be voting for the Bill than will be voting against it. It is fair to say, however, that there is concern about the way in which the Bill is being introduced. Not enough attention has been paid to the valid concerns of people who are genuinely frightened about the possibility, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), that they will be prosecuted if they do not offer weddings of all kinds. Although the Minister did not say this, legal advice suggests that people who work for councils will not be able to discriminate. I understand why that might be, but it is simply not valid to say that people will not be affected by the Bill.
	I am not suggesting that the love between people of the same sex is something evil. History shows that it was Henry VIII who, at the same time as setting up the Church of England, criminalised homosexuality. That law was repealed by Queen Mary, a Catholic monarch, and reinstated by Elizabeth I. I should like to think that it is the Church of England that has played the principal role in some of that horrific abuse.
	The Bill will probably be given Second Reading, but it is important that the Government listen to all sorts of voices in Committee, and that those who are not selected as members of the Committee attend, make their views heard and table amendments.
	I know that many other Members wish to speak. I thank them for their patience.

Andrea Leadsom: The debate goes to the heart of our 21st-century dilemma. In Parliament we rightly advocate equality, freedom and the protection of minority rights, but too often the rights of one group conflict directly with the rights of another. That is not new. Back in the 1850s a political hero of mine, John Stuart Mill, tried in his essay “On Liberty” to define where one person’s liberty ended and another person’s liberty began. He said that we should be
	“without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them”.
	The issue of same-sex marriage tests human liberties to the limit. As a Christian, I have been struggling with trying to square the fact that the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, with my belief that God loves us all equally, whether we believe in him or not, whether we go to church or not, and whatever our sexuality.
	So the first point I wish to make is that I wholeheartedly believe that same-sex couples have as valid a relationship with their partner as do heterosexuals. I also believe that in the eyes of the state we all deserve to be treated equally. But I want to go back to the issue of how one’s person’s liberty should not be allowed to encroach upon another’s, and that is where I am genuinely torn. I have deep sympathy with the hundreds of my constituents who fear that legislation for same-sex marriage will profoundly encroach—although this may be unintended —on their right to live according to their faith. For many, the conviction that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman means that they feel that their own marriage is undermined by what they see as a profound change to the biblical definition. Others fear that same-sex marriage will lead to those working as teachers, priests and chaplains, and those working in the caring professions, being unable to express their own profoundly held views in the workplace. I share their concerns and believe that they are right to fear discrimination against those of faith if this legislation is enacted.
	Finally, I do not believe that we have any mandate for this Bill: there is no nationwide clamour for same-sex marriage; civil partnership does provide state recognition for the love of same-sex partners; and if we were truly seeking equality, surely we would also be legislating for heterosexuals to enter into civil partnership. This Bill causes great hurt and for many represents a radical
	reform without proper consideration having been given to the consequences. I deeply regret the way in which it has diminished the principles of democracy and liberty in this country. It is being rushed through to the shock of many people. Fundamental change such as this should be given time and space for consideration.
	This is no sixth-form debate; it is legislation from one of the oldest Parliaments in the world and the message we give from this place matters deeply. So with great sadness, I shall be positively abstaining: I shall be walking through the Aye Lobby in solidarity with the minority of same-sex couples for whom marriage represents the ultimate expression of their love for one another and then I shall be walking through the No Lobby to support the liberty of those whose freedoms may well be under threat from this ill-considered legislation.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful for having caught your eye, Mr Speaker. You know, Sir, that although it caused the Prime Minister a spot of bother, he was absolutely right to bring forward and raise the principle enshrined in this Bill. One need only look at the number of European countries adopting same-sex marriage and President Obama’s statement in the United States to understand that this issue had to be addressed, and not judged. The Bill contains a noble ambition. It is one that I share, but I shall not be joining my colleagues in the Aye Lobby this evening. In this House of sharply expressed opinions on both sides, perhaps I may take a moment to explain my position.
	As many speakers have said, the issue for gay people in this country has changed dramatically over many years. In my lifetime it has gone from a situation where homosexuality was not recognised in the public square, through a childhood where the absence of understanding of that issue was loud as any absence can be, through a recognition that when one came of age the very act of having sex could lead to the catching of a contagious illness, and through a period when there was a recognition that that illness could lead to loved ones and friends dying. It has also led in the political sphere to political opponents using one’s sexual orientation as a weapon to seek to achieve the accumulation of votes, notwithstanding what their party might say is its abiding principle. Out of that period—significantly, perhaps, from the period of the reaction to HIV and AIDS—came the power for the recognition of same-sex couples having unions. This country, the previous Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) should be enormously proud of their role in bringing civil partnerships into legislation. I am enormously proud of what that means, now that I can talk to a young man—who will, I am sure, very shortly be in this place—about how important it is for him to see that he can marry his partner.
	All that has taught me that, although it is important that I speak in this debate, it is as important that I listen. When one receives so many observations from one’s constituents of deeply held views, it is important for all Members to have some humility before they vote based on their own opinions. Many of those expressions have been based on a religious belief. We should understand that faith matters and we ignore the subtlety of the sinews of faith that operate in our public square if we seek to push to one side people’s concerns and objections.
	We might ultimately decide that we should pass the Bill, and I certainly hope that we can, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities will recognise that there are concerns about the anomalies and the possible ramifications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said, many of them come from a misunderstanding of what the Bill contains. I also ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the fact that President Obama made his position clear before he went into an election. That might not be possible in this instance, but if we want to achieve a long-standing and permanent change to the meaning of marriage, she must consider whether it might be necessary.

Bob Blackman: I was pleased and proud early on in the discussions, when the consultation document was launched, to state publicly that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I stand by that commitment. For saying that in public, I have been subjected to vilification, abuse, threats to my physical well-being and threats to my office. None has come from constituents, but from people outside my constituency. I have received five letters of support for a change to the sexual arrangements in marriage and 1,000 supporting my stance. The vast majority of my constituents share my view that there is no need for such a change. If I thought that same-sex couples did not have the same rights before the law in any shape or form, I would think again, but civil partnerships, introduced by Parliament well before I was elected, introduced those rights for same-sex couples.
	There are differences between the relationships of same-sex couples and heterosexual couples and some have been mentioned. For example, a same-sex couple cannot consummate a marriage. It is a physical impossibility. They cannot produce children without a third party as either a sperm donor or a surrogate is required. Those two things start to change the facts of equality and unequal treatment.
	As a party, we have no mandate to introduce any change to the law because we did not promise to do so. When we introduced the consultation document, it did not ask whether we should do this but how to do it. As a result, the petition from the Coalition for Marriage was completely ignored. We have heard legal opinions about challenges. I have sat through almost all the debate and we should remember that Parliament passes laws and Ministers propose laws to Parliament but the courts and lawyers interpret the laws that are passed. We can give no guarantees about people being prosecuted and forced through the courts for expressing their valid opinions.
	I worry about what will happen in our schools. Disciplinary codes are the responsibility of head teachers and governing bodies, so will teachers be forced to teach things with which they fundamentally disagree because of their devout religious views? If they choose not to do so, will they be the subject of disciplinary action and sacked? It is all very well to say that the law will protect them, but one person has already lost his job. He won the court case, but he still lost his job. He has not got the court costs back, and is still way out of pocket. People fear that across the land.
	When we talk about the matter of faith, a Church or any religious institution is not the building in which it sits—it is the body of the organisation; it is the congregation. Many evangelical Churches have to hire local authority premises, and they will be told that they can no longer hire those premises to practise their religion unless they allow same-sex marriages to be introduced.
	Finally, on the key subject of the title of the Bill, the aim of the measure is allegedly to create equality. We will have same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages—two totally different things, so the object is defeated.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I pay tribute to everyone who has spoken, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who gave a gentle and humble speech. I hope to follow him along those lines, because it is important that we debate this sensibly and calmly.
	I, like all Members in the Chamber, want to see loving couples and happy families. We all want that to be the case, but I think—and I shall vote against the Bill—that this is a step too far and a sad day for marriage as I and millions of people in this country understand it. I regret to say that there is an element of token politics in this, which I do not like. We are talking about redefining marriage. I do not understand “redefining marriage”. Where do we stop? What can we redefine next? Shall we redefine “husband”, “wife”, “parents”, “children”, “Mr and Mrs”? Let us keep on redefining until we change everything that I and many others hold dear.
	I do not want the nation to be full of grey nothings, because that is what will happen if we go on reacting when people say that their sensibilities have been upset. I am concerned in particular about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which have been mentioned again and again, and for good reason. I paint a picture of a teacher in a school who does not agree with the Bill. Will she say to the headmaster or headmistress, “I don’t want to give this lesson”? What will happen to that teacher if she objects on grounds of conscience? Evidence shows that, regrettably, that teacher will be disadvantaged.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Richard Drax: I shall carry on, because other colleagues wish to speak.
	I do not agree that this is about discrimination, persecution or prejudice—words that have been used this afternoon and, dare I say it, thrown around the Chamber a bit like confetti. This is about the Christian faith. I am not a great practising Christian—I am not here in my box—but this is about the Christian faith, and we are in effect undermining its core belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have heard the word, “want”—“We want this”—again and again and again. All of us want lots of things, but there are consequences. What I have not heard in the cry for rights is the word, “responsibilities”. One member of my constituency, a gay man, said to me, “Richard, I do not agree with this, because I respect the institution of
	marriage, and I do not want to undermine that in any way. There is no call for that, and I do not want the gay community to go there.”
	Finally, it is a sad day when a Conservative Prime Minister uses, in effect, the Opposition and our colleagues on the Front Benches to push this through. It is a sad day for democracy, and a sad day for our party.

Iain Stewart: I welcome the opportunity and the privilege of taking part in this important debate. I often recall the day a few years ago when I finally plucked up the courage to tell my parents that I was gay. I began the conversation with the line, “Mum, you know I’m never going to be able to marry.” I used that form of words as a way of broaching an awkward conversation and I did not really think much about it at the time, but I often reflect on those words and it makes me very sad that for so long that was a factually correct statement.
	I look at the marriage that my parents have—45 years and going strong—and I aspire to the same thing. I do not have someone at the minute, but if I do, I want to cherish that person, love them, support them. It is not just about a ceremony; it is about being with them for the rest of a life, in good times and bad, richer or poorer, sickness and health. That can apply as much to me as to a straight couple. I do not understand why some people feel threatened that allowing me to have that in any way diminishes what a heterosexual couple has. I want the same things.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was absolutely right when he said that we do not talk enough about helping relationships, strengthening them, rewarding people for doing the right thing. We should. But stopping gay people marrying is not part of that. It will not diminish that.
	I very much welcome the Bill. There are many different interpretations of marriage. We have heard them discussed today. Some people do not wish divorcees to remarry. Others are perfectly comfortable with it. I am no theological expert, but the concept of marriage has evolved over time. It is perfectly possible to respect those who take a traditional view of marriage. I do not agree with it, but I utterly respect those who sincerely hold that view. It is surely possible both to respect that and to allow others to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Other countries have managed it perfectly well—Spain, Canada and many other countries. It is surely not beyond our wit and wisdom to devise that in law in this country. That is why I welcome the Bill and, in a little while, I will go through the Aye Lobby with pride.

Guy Opperman: This is one of the finest debates that I have ever had the privilege of listening to, with outstanding contributions on both sides. This House, I suggest, is on a journey, and it is a journey that can be traced back many years. A hundred years ago there were the suffragettes and the opportunity for women to have the vote. In 1922 women were entitled to be MPs. Fifty years ago we had the civil rights movement and in 1967 homosexuality was made
	legal. Approximately 10 years ago civil partnerships were made legal. In that context, the House is on a journey and the country is on a journey too. We are all changing. The House must change with it, and so must the country. That is why I will support the Bill tonight.
	To the many people who have come to see me or have written to me, whether from the Catholic Church, the Church of England or other faiths, I say that I respect entirely that this is a very large step for all of us to take and that it will have a significant impact on all of us, but it is right that we should support those who wish to go on this journey.
	The Bill is not perfect. Anyone who has listened to the debate will know that even the most ardent supporters in the debate accept that the Bill requires improvement as it navigates its way through Committee. I for one strongly urge the House that the Bill should have proper Committee consideration and amendment as it goes forward.
	For me, this is a matter of commitment. I have spent 20 years as a community activist, councillor, lawyer, and now MP seeing examples of the difficulties that occur when couples fail to commit and fail to bring up children in the right way. Yet when two people show a desire to commit in the most serious way possible, are we to deny them that opportunity merely because they are of the same sex? That cannot be right. We know that married couples are twice as likely to stay together as cohabiting couples. Yes, there are clear religious problems with the arguments made in favour of the Bill, but I cannot conceive of a God who creates, allows and permits homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.
	The protections that have been put into the Bill are ample. The examples that we see in other countries all across the world show that this process can be navigated without recourse to the European Court of Human Rights or other legal jurisdictions. It cannot be right that we are failing to allow religious groups, including the Quakers and the Unitarians, who want to conduct such marriages to be able to move forward on that. With respect, that seems totally illogical. I am satisfied that the necessary religious freedoms are in place and that no institution or church leader, be they Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever, can be forced to conduct such marriages. Do not take my word for it, Mr Speaker. Rabbi Julia Neuberger has said:
	“It is precisely because marriage is such a uniquely important institution that we should ensure that all couples who want to get married can do so, regardless of their sexuality.”
	Some have insisted that same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. Does anyone here feel that they would be less married because we had gay constituents who could commit in that way? I am not married. I have yet to find the woman who would want to marry someone such as me—but she is out there, Mr Speaker, I promise you. When I do want to marry, the fact that gay friends and gay colleagues are also getting married would not stop me from doing so.

Martin Vickers: I think you said at the beginning of the debate, Mr Speaker, that 71 Back Benchers were going to take part. If I am the 71st or thereabouts, my speech will be an action replay of many of the points that have previously been made.
	I am going to oppose the Bill. On balance, I accept that evidence from the polls probably indicates that a majority in the country favour this change. However, the democratic process should protect those with deeply felt and sincerely held views that mean they cannot—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I know it has been a long debate, but the hon. Gentleman must be heard, and with courtesy, I hope.

Martin Vickers: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The democratic process should protect those with deeply felt and sincerely held views that mean they cannot go along with this change. In proposing it, we are alienating tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of our supporters, who feel threatened. Perhaps the tide of history is moving against them, but a major social change should not be pushed through with no electoral mandate. Previous speakers have referred to the contract for equalities that was published by the Conservative party three days before the election. It is disingenuous to say that that was a manifesto commitment: clearly, it was not. Very few people knew that it existed, and at that point many people had already voted by post.
	I accept that the younger generation, and perhaps even the middle-aged, are more relaxed about this issue, but those in the 50 or 55-plus age group feel, to say the least, uncomfortable with the proposed changes. I suspect that few, if any, in the 50-plus age group are offering policy advice to Ministers. Had that been the case, we would probably not be in this position tonight.
	The Minister said that religious organisations take different views on this, and indeed they do. It is easy to pluck out biblical references to support arguments, but politicians, even practising Christians such as myself, should be very wary about doing so. However, in one particular exchange with a constituent I was reminded of the biblical quotation,
	“love is the fulfilment of the law”.
	That, combined with an e-mail that I received from a young lady—a student constituent—who is in a same-sex relationship, did, indeed, make me reflect on the situation. As I have said, however, I have still come to the conclusion that I will oppose this change.
	Governments must legislate to balance the different views of those over whom they rule. Put simply, by pushing ahead with this Bill without a mandate, the Government are trampling on the strongly held views of a great many people. Significant social change should be allowed to evolve. Attitudes move on and a Bill such as this may well be accepted in the not-too-distant future, but now is not the time. The very least the Government could do, as has already been suggested, is allow us more time—they should stop, pause, reflect and give more time.
	It is unfortunate that the media have represented the Conservative party as split. I can assure them that, if they visited the streets of Cleethorpes, they would see that people from across the political spectrum are very wary and concerned about the proposals. I join those colleagues who have urged the House to vote against the Bill.

Kate Green: We have heard many deeply felt speeches representing a very wide range of views. Given that we have heard, I think, 66 contributions, I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will forgive me if I do not comment on individual contributions; otherwise, we will be here all evening. What I will say is that every single one of those contributions will have been listened to with immense care and attention by lesbian, gay and transgender people around the country for whom, of course, this debate is of profound significance.
	I am delighted that we have had this debate and congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill at this time. This represents a rare thing in this House—a chance for us to celebrate and debate a happy subject, and we should address it in that spirit.
	Labour introduced civil partnerships legislation in 2004 and since then, in a very short period, they have become widely and readily accepted. It has quickly become time to finish what was started then and I am very pleased that we are making progress with this Bill today.
	It is clear that there are concerns relating to detailed aspects of the Bill and it is, of course, right that they should be examined in Committee, but to those who say that we should be doing more important things in this Parliament I say that I cannot understand why we would not think it important to take time to recognise, encourage and enable more people to enter into marriage as an expression of their stable, loving and committed relationship.
	I will pick up on one or two of the arguments that have been made. On the argument that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, I recognise that that is the teaching in many faiths but, as hon. Members throughout the House have pointed out, marriage is not just a religious matter—it is a social institution, too, and precisely because it is a social institution the meaning of marriage changes over time as society’s values change. Those changes prove that marriage is remarkably resilient. Indeed, its resilience derives in part from its ability to adapt to changing social mores. By recognising and extending the definition of marriage to reflect today’s greater openness towards and recognition of same-sex relationships, the Bill does not weaken the institution of marriage. On the contrary, it takes it forward, strengthens it and helps to perpetuate it.
	Those who have argued that marriage can exist only between persons of opposite sex have also pointed to the procreation of children as a defining element of marriage. That is to see marriage very narrowly. The possibility of marriage has always existed for couples for whom children are not an option. I am glad to say, as a 52-year-old woman, that we have never forbidden women of over childbearing age from entering into marriage.
	We have heard some important contributions about how the children of parents in same-sex marriages will fare. There is plenty of evidence that what children need above all in order to thrive is to live in families where there is stability and love. I understand the concerns about stigma, but that is something that we as a society can do something about and have a responsibility to do something about.
	On the need for female and male role models for children, there are already many successful families who do not conform to the traditional two-parent nuclear pattern and whose children do very well. Wider family networks, schools and communities supply a range of role models, as they will for children who are brought up by those in same-sex marriages. We should all take a role in ensuring that that happens.
	Importantly, for the young person who is trying to make sense of his or her sexuality, the public affirmation and celebration of same-sex marriage can offer a promise of acceptance and assurance.
	Aspects of the Bill will be considered carefully in Committee, but we should celebrate the underlying purpose, because it is good. The public support it and three in five people of faith support it. Most tellingly, there is a changing tide, with the generation under 50 showing by far the most support. This Parliament should be proud to afford the right to marry to same-sex couples. In doing so, we will lay down a marker for equality, and our society as a whole will be stronger for it.

Hugh Robertson: By our calculations, there have been more than 70 speeches this afternoon. This has been a lively and impassioned debate, and one that has shown this House at its best. It has demonstrated how deeply Members from all parts of the House feel about this issue. I hope that we will continue to respect those differences as the Bill moves on to the Committee and Report stages.
	This is a Bill with a straightforward proposition at its heart—whether extending marriage to same-sex couples strengthens marriage and increases equality, or whether it is a threat to religion and society. The Government believe that the former is the case. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said, that this is a Bill whose time has come.
	In the limited time available to me, I will try to deal briefly with the main issues that have been raised. Time for interventions will be limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) asked whether the Government would be willing to look again at clause 11(5). We are happy to discuss that provision again with the Church of England. Doubtless it will also be discussed in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) asked whether we would look at matters with an open mind in Committee and on Report. We will, but any matters that are raised must be within the scope of the Bill.
	The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked about the position of the Church of England. In its briefing, the Church of England said that it is essential that the various locks in the Bill are preserved, as drafted. That point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan).
	The right hon. Member for Exeter also asked about the position of a clergyman who wishes to marry a same-sex couple in another building. A Church of England
	clergyman could not marry a same-sex couple according to Church of England rites, because he would need the approval of the governing authority of his church and he and the premises would need to be licensed. It is unlikely that those three criteria would all be fulfilled.
	One of the Members from Northern Ireland—I am sorry, I forget which one—asked whether marriage courses run by Churches would be affected by the Bill. The answer is no. There are existing protections in the Equality Act 2010, which ensures that non-commercial religious organisations can restrict their services on the basis of sexual orientation.
	A number of Members asked about the legal position in Denmark. It is very simple: when same-sex marriage was introduced in Denmark, the legislation required the established Church to conduct such ceremonies. That is fundamentally different from the position in this country. That is not the approach we are taking with this legislation.
	Finally, we were asked about polygamy. The case in Brazil that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) cited involved a legal marriage of three people in a civil union, so it does not apply.
	In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, this has been a good and lively debate, during which all sides have had an opportunity to place their arguments on the record. We will continue to examine the Bill in detail in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, starting with detailed evidence Sessions next week.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend says that this has been a lively and passionate debate. Would the Government consider taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, so that some of those who have not been able to speak today, along with others, can have a chance to question the Minister on the detail of the Bill?

Hugh Robertson: I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. There is a procedural issue, which is that many of the Churches and people who wish to give detailed evidence in the evidence sessions have asked us not to do what he suggests. If we took the Committee stage entirely on the Floor of the House, we would have to forgo the opportunity for them to appear before the Committee in detailed evidence sessions. It is precisely to protect the ability of the many religious groups that wish to give evidence in person that we have been unable to do as he suggests.

Anne Main: rose—

Hugh Robertson: No, I am afraid that I will not be able to take any more interventions.
	At the heart of this Bill is a straightforward proposition. If a couple love each other, the state should not stop them from getting married unless there is a good reason, and in this day and age being gay is not a good reason, if it ever was. I know that, for some religions and faiths, this goes beyond their beliefs. I respect that entirely; as a
	result, the Bill specifically protects the rights of those who do not agree and does not compel anyone to do anything. All religious organisations are free to choose whether to opt in or opt out. This Bill simply allows people to get married who are currently excluded from doing so purely because they are of the same sex. It is a clear and simple objective, delivered in a way that promotes and protects religious freedom. In short, I believe this is a sensible and timely step forward. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 400, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Floor of the House today, we heard many times that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The Minister was asked whether that was possible, and he gave his reasons why he believed not. For clarification, Mr Speaker, and before we vote on the programme motion, is it possible to have split Committee proceedings, with some upstairs, facilitating what the Minister would like to happen, and some on the Floor of the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempted point of order. Her point might be interesting, but that does not render it a point of order on which I can rule. Her view, no doubt informed by a close reading of Standing Order No. 84A(2), will assuredly guide her and perhaps other right hon. and hon. Members on how to vote on the programme motion, which is about to be moved by or on behalf of the Minister.

MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 12 March 2013.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	5. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 499, Noes 55.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a))
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a person holding office under Her Majesty or by a government department, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and
	(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 481, Noes 34.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Maria Miller relating to Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Carry-over).—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.

MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a),
	That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Karen Bradley.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 464, Noes 38.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 1 November 2012, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 1 November 2012, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Loss of Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 8 January, be approved—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Climate Change

That the draft Climate Change Levy (Combined Heat and Power Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Income Tax

That the draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 7 January, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.

OUTDOOR PURSUITS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

David Rutley: It is not often that the indoor activity of parliamentary debate focuses on participation in outdoor pursuits, so I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting and granting this debate on this important subject. I am also grateful for the presence of the Minister of State because I know that today has been particularly heavy for him and his Department, and thank him for being willing to respond to the debate.
	I also want to draw Members’ attention to the register of all-party groups and say for the record that I am co-chairman of the all-party group on mountaineering, vice-chairman of the all-party group on mountain rescue —it is good to see members of both those groups present—and secretary of the all-party group on national parks.
	I am a passionate participant, when time and this job permit, in outdoor pursuits. I am also a great supporter of the Government’s efforts to increase participation in sports and sports-related activity. I believe that outdoor pursuits play a vital role, which is sometimes undervalued, in achieving that aim. The health and well-being benefits associated with participation in those pursuits are clear for all to see.
	There are also economic benefits. Increasing the volume and value of tourism in the great outdoors, particularly activity and adventure tourism, is of fundamental importance to the Government’s wider strategy for jobs and growth, for the lasting Olympic legacy and for rebalancing the UK economy in favour of many rural communities.
	It is right to put the spotlight on activity and adventure tourism in particular, because I believe that this sector has the greatest as yet unexploited potential for sustainable economic growth and jobs.

Andrew Bingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Buxton adventure festival was held in my constituency of High Peak only last year and that more than 800 people attended it? I tend to agree with him—we have neighbouring constituencies that have a lot in common—that the outdoor pursuits available in our constituencies, which are coterminous in many ways, are a fantastic thing for both tourism and local people.

David Rutley: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I see that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), is nodding her head. She represents Leek and these things are vital for our community. I have met the organiser of the Buxton festival in the past and it is a tremendous initiative showing what can be done to move things forward and help jobs and growth in our rural communities.
	The experiences associated with outdoor pursuits, such as hill walking, rock climbing and mountaineering, are real and tangible. If we add mountain biking, kayaking, canoeing and even ghyll scrambling, we will see that there is huge potential that needs to be exploited.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue to the House. He mentioned the outdoor pursuits of hill walking, mountain climbing and so on but, on country sports and, indeed, shooting sports, does he agree that the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation could work with young people to give them opportunities in those adventure sports?

David Rutley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important contribution and I think that Members of all parties would agree that there is room for those activities as well. Debates about them are quite frequent—they have been in the past anyway—and today I want to put the spotlight on other outdoor pursuits, but there is definitely work to be done in that regard, too.
	There is lots to do. My contribution is less about having my head in the clouds and more about having—in the best traditions of mountaineering—a summit in mind and a determination to reach it.
	According to VisitBritain’s most recent edition of Foresight—issue 111—the Olympic and Paralympic games have already massively improved the nation’s brand, with 99% of international communications experts saying that the games have helped tremendously to move our brand forward. We need to build on that extraordinary momentum, which the Minister himself was pivotal in making possible. He will know, no doubt, that, while we are ranked fourth in the world as a tourist destination—primarily for our culture and heritage—we are a very disappointing 18th with regard to the rich natural beauty of our outdoors, and that that is an improvement on where we were before the Olympics. A lot of work needs to be done.
	Given that the North Downs way runs through the Minister’s constituency, he will appreciate that our national trails are a very important aspect of what we have to offer and they need to be cherished.

Graham Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Ramblers Association play a vital role, especially the north Cheshire branch? Is he aware of Helsby hill in my constituency and, indeed, the Sandstone trail, which are significant for weekend walkers?

David Rutley: I am well aware of them and have climbed on Helsby crag myself. Those are important trails. Ramblers plays an important role, as do many other organisations, such as the British Mountaineering Council, which I will talk about in a minute.
	There is more to be done. When VisitEngland speaks to visitors within the UK, it is clear that they do not know what the options are. Somebody said in one focus group:
	“I was struggling to think of places I wanted to go to, because I don’t know the country, what’s all this in the middle?”
	There is the Peak district and the Pennines for a start, as well as many other wonderful places. We need to get the word out and help people understand what is going on. We need to provide opportunities for the sun seekers to come and find winter excitement and enjoyment in the UK. People need to have access to information. The Minister’s Department has an important role to play in that.
	We are making Britain a more welcoming place, but we need to find a way of making our outdoors more welcoming. The new “Walkers are Welcome” initiative is certainly doing that. It has created a number of welcoming destinations for walkers, which currently total 100. That will be important in putting the focus on that activity.
	This debate is not just about tourism; it is about sports-related activity. Interestingly, hill walking and mountaineering is one of only four sports that are growing in participation. Indoor rock climbing is seeing explosive growth, particularly among younger people. It is incredible to see that. Climbing is one of five or six sports that have been shortlisted for inclusion as an Olympic sport. The International Olympic Committee will make a decision on 7 September. Perhaps the Minister will consider that bid, offer advice and support that aim.

Guto Bebb: I have the privilege of representing Aberconwy, which includes Coed y Brenin, part of the main Plas y Brenin mountaineering centre. There is a perception that these sports are for the middle classes. Through the outdoor partnership, the Plas y Brenin centre is trying to make young school children feel that this is something that people in their local area are involved in. Participation has grown significantly as a result.

David Rutley: Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate supporter of Plas y Brenin and other outdoor activities in his constituency. I am grateful for that, as are other people. As he says, it is vital that these activities are not only for middle-income groups and older people, but for people across the age ranges. These pursuits can be enjoyed throughout a person’s life, unlike other elite or competitive sports. It is vital to involve younger people.
	The health and well-being aspects of outdoor pursuits are clear for everybody to see. It is important to note, as Change4Life has pointed out, that regular activity reduces the risk of early mortality by more than 30%, and yet only 6% of men and 4% of women aged 16 and over meet the Government’s recommendation. Outdoor pursuits can help to tackle that.

Simon Hart: Given the benefits, which my hon. Friend has outlined so well, does he agree that this debate is as much about outdoor education as it is about outdoor entertainment? Would it not be good if the Department of Health and the Department for Education were represented on the Front Bench too, because they have as much at stake in this matter as the Minister’s Department?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I would love to see Ministers from both those Departments here. However, it has been a long day and I am grateful that we have the Minister with responsibility for sport and tourism in the Chamber.
	Thank goodness we have organisations such as the Scouts and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme that engage young people, places such as Plas y Brenin and the Manchester climbing centre that engage people who are disadvantaged or who have disabilities, and charities such as the David Lewis Centre that get involved in these pursuits and allow people to expand their horizons.

Lilian Greenwood: I know that the hon. Gentleman and I share a love of the outdoors. I agree with the interesting points that he has been making. Does he agree that volunteers have a vital role to play in making the outdoors accessible, especially to young people? Barbara Green runs a Duke of Edinburgh’s award open group in Clifton in my constituency, which not only provides young people with fantastic experiences, but gives them skills and confidence that can help them to thrive in education, as well as a great love of the outdoors.

David Rutley: The hon. Lady—my friend—makes an important point. When we were on Snowdon back in September, we saw a group of Asian girls from London on the Duke of Edinburgh scheme making their first trip up. Those are the sorts of experiences we want to promote and encourage.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Rutley: Forgive me, but I need to make some progress, because we also want to hear from the Minister.
	Progress has been made. The Minister has met the British Mountaineering Council and he supported the first ever reception for the Great Britain climbing team here, with the great Dame Kelly Holmes. That was an outstanding event, for which I thank him. We have also had the launch of Britain on Foot, an important scheme that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), came and supported, so the participation is there. Britain on Foot in particular is a scheme that we need to get behind. It is an amalgamation of groups, including trusted campaigners such as the British Mountaineering Council, the Ramblers—which we have already heard about—the Camping and Caravanning Club and, of course, the National Trust, along with 200 businesses involved in the outdoor industry and related matters. Those groups are vital. The public launch is in May and there will be three major projects: “Get Britain walking” week, led by the Ramblers, the “Outdoor adventure” week and the National Trust’s “50 things to do” week, which will encourage younger people to get involved.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and also on being a Sport and Recreation Alliance’s sports parliamentarian of the year. I heartily agree with his comments about Britain on Foot and how people can get out and enjoy our countryside. Does he agree that one way people can get out is on their bikes and that we should encourage cycling as a way of enjoying outdoor pursuits?

David Rutley: As a former resident of Harrogate, I appreciate how important cycling is in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have often seen him out in the hills enjoying the great sights—when he has any time and is not campaigning, of course. He is absolutely right: these are important pursuits to support.
	Britain on Foot is ahead of us, so momentum is building. We have heard about volunteers doing their work, creating the Bollington walking festival and walking festivals elsewhere across the country. Let us get behind
	those things. The Government are moving forward on the Olympic legacy with the “Adventure is Great Britain” campaign, which is now an important pillar of that legacy. I hope we will hear about that from the Minister.

Greg Mulholland: I commend my hon. Friend’s leadership of the all-party group on mountaineering, of which I am proud to be a member. The legacy is important, yet we are talking about things that are not necessarily seen as organised sport, but which are wonderful ways of getting involved, getting engaged and keeping fit, so we must ensure that they are included in all the plans. I am delighted to support the Britain on Foot campaign with him.

David Rutley: I thank my hon. Friend. It is encouraging to see support from all the different parties across the House. I think we are all united on this issue, which makes such a big difference to people throughout their lives. I recognise the work he does in various sports, including rugby league. The activities that we are talking about can make a difference across people’s lives.
	I would like the Minister to focus on three things—if he is in agreement—as he looks at this great, hidden gem, in this Aladdin’s cave of opportunity for British tourism. First, we would like him to recognise the important role—which we all recognise—that opportunities for outdoor pursuits play in our rural communities for participation in sport and for health and well-being. Secondly, we also very much hope that he will be able to spend time meeting a group of people from the outdoor organisations we have talked about and the industry, to consider how to come up with pragmatic plans—which will hopefully fit with some of his that are already in place—to move the agenda forwards. Finally, we urge him to ensure that his Department and the related bodies, including VisitBritain, VisitEngland and, for that matter, English Heritage, give their full support to the Britain on Foot in the campaign over the months ahead. It is interesting to note that President Obama is supporting such initiatives in the States. The US has a “Great outdoors” month. I am not particularly competitive —not much—but I think we could do a lot more, a lot better than the US. The ideas we have discussed this evening would be great for that.
	I want to end by recognising the huge contribution made by some of this country’s great adventurers, such as Bonington and Whillans—all these great climbers—but let us focus on Whymper, who was the first to climb the Matterhorn, in 1865. He said:
	“There have been joys too great to be described in words, and there have been griefs upon which I have not dared to dwell, and with these in mind I say, climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are naught without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste, look well to each step, and from the beginning think what may be the end.”
	Determined and inspired words, and hopefully from my remarks tonight the Minister will feel a similar resolve to reach new summits in sports and the other activities mentioned today. The view from the top? Enduring economic benefits and the improved health of our nation. It is surely a climb worth making.

Hugh Robertson: At the start of what I think is my seventh hour in the Chamber today, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for initiating this debate on the important role that participation in outdoor pursuits can play in supporting tourism, health, well-being and sports-related activity.
	The Government recognise that tourism is a cornerstone of growth. We also recognise the role that tourism plays in rural economies, and within that the role that outdoor pursuits such as camping, hill walking, climbing and outdoor adventure play in underpinning key local tourism economies. The GREAT campaign, run from the Prime Minister’s office, celebrates the UK’s rich heritage and contemporary culture, our people and places to visit, as well as our great commercial strengths. Outdoor leisure is a key element of that campaign as it enables us to promote the United Kingdom as a fantastic destination for adventure and exploration.
	Officials in my Department are exploring the possibility of linking the campaign with other areas of Government activity, such as the Department of Health’s Change4Life scheme. Across the piece, VisitBritain’s greatest ever global tourism campaign, supported by GREAT, is expected to bring in 4.6 million extra visitors, £2.3 billion additional spend, and create nearly 60,000 jobs over four years. Analysis has shown that investment in GREAT to date is projected to help generate around a quarter of a billion pounds for the British economy over the next two years. The rural economy is well placed to benefit from that investment.

Greg Mulholland: I was delighted to be at King’s Cross station to welcome the new Discover Leeds tourism campaign. It has received regional growth funding, which is marvellous. Will the Minister acknowledge the important role and opportunity provided by Britain on Foot to get people walking in urban and suburban areas? We have a great example in the Meanwood valley trail that goes from Leeds city centre through my constituency, nature reserves and parks, to connect with the countryside. The scheme applies to all areas.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and—I say this every time—for the work he has done on the rugby league world cup. I am sorry that I was not able to join him this morning—the reason is obvious: the Bill—but I acknowledge his contribution. The scheme has been incredibly successful, and a key objective of much of the reconstitution work around the Olympic park was to create such walking trails. Indeed, I led quite a lot of work last year to ensure that the full commitments on the cycling area are upheld when the track is reconstituted after the games.
	In tandem with the VisitBritain investment, VisitEngland has a £25 million campaign, including “Holidays at Home Are GREAT”, which is expected to create more than 12,000 jobs, with £500 million extra spent by tourists between 2011 and 2015.
	The current economic climate is, of course, making life hard for many communities and businesses, so apart from GREAT, what are the Government doing to help? There is specific Government support. For example, VisitEngland includes the promotion of outdoor activity
	in its work with the support of the regional growth fund and investment from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will be pleased to hear that it is entirely supportive of the aims of the Britain on Foot campaign, as they align with increasing activity in the great outdoors and the subsequent economic benefit for tourism businesses. VisitEngland recognises the connection between increased outdoor activity-related tourism and increased sales of outdoor clothing and equipment. The agenda of the Outdoor Industries Association and Britain on Foot is very much aligned with VisitEngland’s strategic framework for tourism in England. Its focus on modernising the rural offering and getting younger people in particular interested in outdoor experiences will ultimately benefit the rural economy.

Kris Hopkins: My constituency has the Pennine way running through it, Brontë country, Top Withens and Ilkley moor—I will not sing the song. It is a great privilege to be part of that fantastic countryside, but its economy is important and the money that the Minister is speaking of is important in stimulating the economy. Does he recognise the importance of the rural service economy?

Hugh Robertson: It has been quite a day for me, moving from the same-sex marriage debate to Ilkley moor, but I enthusiastically endorse what my hon. Friend says.
	Hon. Members will be pleased that mountaineering is receiving £3 million through Sport England’s whole sport plans from 2013 to 2017. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced a £2 million fund for the creation of new permanent access rights within a £25 million package to promote rural tourism and support rural tourism businesses, following the rural economy growth review in 2011. The paths for communities scheme funded by the rural development programme for England aims to develop and enhance the rights of way network to the benefit of the local economy by funding projects developed by local communities.

Lilian Greenwood: How should people get to those great outdoor places? Rural transport is important, particularly for young people and people on low incomes who might not have access to a motor car. Has the Minister discussed that with his colleagues in the Department for Transport?

Hugh Robertson: In all honesty, the answer is no, but that is an extremely good point and I will ensure we follow it up. If the hon. Lady is happy for me to write to her, I will do so. Part of the attraction of many places is that they are remote. It is important that we open them up, particularly to young people, while maintaining the correct balances.
	In the past 12 months, the Government have announced that £107 million will be made available during this Parliament for cycling. That included last month’s announcement of a fund worth up to £12 million being made available to local authorities working in partnership with the national parks to improve conditions for cyclists.
	What else has happened? Access, through rights of way and open access, is probably the best it has ever been in England. Access is incredibly important for the economy, and we can be very proud of our network of national trails, which can be important generators for local business. For example, university of Exeter research shows that the south-west coast path generates around £300 million a year for the economy of the region and supports around 7,500 jobs.
	Natural England is committed to increasing the number and range of people who can experience and benefit from the natural environment, and it is leading on the Government’s ambition that everybody should have fair access to a good-quality natural environment. It is championing “Outdoors for All” and the natural environment on behalf of the Government and ensuring that the green-space volunteering and heritage sectors work side by side with partners to help to improve the quality of everybody’s experience of natural places.
	I will touch on two of the issues my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned in a minute, but first let me say that the Olympic legacy has been making an impact on health and well-being since we won the bid back in 2005. If he had told me that might happen on that happy night in Singapore when we were celebrating the success of the bid, I would have replied that that wonderful ambition was unlikely to be realised, but since the bid to stage the games was won in 2005 we have managed to ensure that more than 1.5 million more people are playing sport regularly. That is a remarkable achievement and one that no other host nation has managed.
	Sport England and the Department of Health are working together to align programmes to support those who are least active. We have recently had an opportunity for interested organisations to apply to the “Get Healthy, Get into Sport” fund. The fund is seeking to improve the evidence base on the role of sport to engage inactive people—many of whom, I suspect, would be attracted by precisely the activities my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield is advocating—and produce the right type of information that is of interest to those who commission public health programmes.
	Let me touch on two issues my hon. Friend mentioned. I always get asked about International Olympic Committee votes. It is important to say that the only people who vote on which sports go into the mix—he is absolutely right, the vote is in the September IOC session in Buenos Aires—are the IOC members, and they are extremely resistant to pressure from Government to get sports in and out. A number of sports are trying to get in this time around, some of which would do us, as a country, quite a lot of good, so we would like to see them in. The advice to mountaineering—indeed, the advice I would give to any sport—is that it is important to take a strategic long-term view. Mountaineering may be lucky in 2020, but if it is not, the sport’s representatives need to keep plugging away, because the programme changes regularly. Even in London, we could sense that there were some sports that may not have a long-term future in the summer games. There is a case for mountaineering in either the winter or the summer games; as there is a place for it in both, it is well worth plugging away at the strategic level.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will take confidence from what I have said. I absolutely acknowledge the opportunities for outdoor pursuits, and I would be delighted to meet with the organisations he mentioned. If he does not mind, could he give me a month while we get this uncontroversial little piece of legislation through Parliament? I give him my assurance that I will ensure that the arms-length bodies give full support to the Britain on Foot initiative.
	Mr Speaker, thank you for remaining with us for most of these seven hours—

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) raised the issue of using outdoor pursuits in education. Will the Minister give a commitment to work with the Department for Education to achieve that?

Hugh Robertson: I think at this stage of the evening I might just say, “Indeed, yes. Trust me, it will be done.”
	In conclusion, and before I go off and make my final speech of the evening outside the Chamber, I will finish by confirming that through many of the initiatives in place, the Government recognise entirely the important role that informal outdoor activity and sport-related activity play in supporting tourism and the health and well-being agendas. There is a unique opportunity to market this country, and we have seen the effects already, with an increase in visitor numbers post-2012. The hon. Gentleman and others can be assured that outdoor pursuits will play a key part in that process.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.